Tourism

Lord Luke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to ensure that London is an effective gateway for tourism into the United Kingdom.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport promotes London as a gateway both via our sponsorship of the British Tourist Authority and via the grant that we give to the Greater London Authority. The Government require the BTA to attempt to increase the amount that overseas tourists spend outside London. Our agreement with the Greater London Authority stipulates that it must promote London as a gateway to the rest of the UK. The work is carried out on behalf of the GLA by the London Tourist Board.

Lord Luke: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will she encourage the agencies, including the ETC in its proposed new marketing role, to direct a much greater proportion of its available resources towards selling Britain as a package tour, with London as its focal point—bearing in mind that, as of 2000, some 80 per cent of overseas visitors to London never leave London except to go home?

Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I will. It is vital that we encourage visitors to London to take a trip outside the city as well. Recent surveys suggest that many visitors who decide not to travel to the rest of the UK do so merely through lack of time. Many say that on a second visit to the UK they will set aside time to visit places outside London. The BTA is trying to encourage people to take packages involving particular types of trips: for example, a royal heritage trail all over the country, and even a "Harry Potter: discovering the magic of Britain" initiative.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the quickest ways to help the London tourism industry is to restore to the English Tourism Council, when it is reformed, the marketing function enjoyed by the three other home country tourist boards?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely accept what my noble friend says. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Tourism have been meeting with the industry to examine the whole issue of how to restore to the ETC its marketing role, not just in terms of London but throughout the UK.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that England is the natural place where people who come to London go—not necessarily Scotland; Scotland has its own gateways. London's brand image is very strong. Everyone in the world knows about London—and visitors come to London in vast numbers—but they do not necessarily know about England. Following on the previous question, how is the brand image of England to be improved and increased, so that people will be encouraged as a matter of course to travel from London to the rest of the English countryside and to English towns?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right. Work must be done to make sure that people understand about the amazing, wonderful and rich sights to be found outside London. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, the BTA is doing all that it can abroad to encourage visitors to come not merely to London but to other parts of the country through the kinds of packages I have described. Its target is to bring UK expenditure from incoming tourists outside London to at least 45 per cent of the total.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the current traffic gridlock in central London is a major negative factor in the promotion of London as the tourism gateway to the rest of the United Kingdom? Is the Minister aware of the growing suspicion that the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, is deliberately allowing massive and unco-ordinated roadworks in central London so as to justify the introduction of congestion charges next year?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is slightly wide of the Question. But having suffered this morning as a result of massive gridlock in London, I am sympathetic to much of what the noble Lord has said. I cannot speak for the GLA or for the Mayor. Tourists, like everyone else, want to move about within London and all over the country. Therefore, it is important to have a co-ordinated response and to attempt to improve public transport in the city as well as the movement of private cars.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, recognising the importance of tourism to our economy and the crucial importance of London, and the vital need for full ministerial attention to be given to the challenging situation at the present time, how much time does the Minister expect to be spending on the affairs of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, for which I understand she is now responsible?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not responsible for the Avon and Somerset Constabulary. I think that the noble Lord has been seriously misled by articles in the newspapers that do not represent reality. I am one of 10 Ministers responsible for supporting Home Office Ministers in relation to the Prime Minister's street crime initiative. The reason I am one of those 10 Ministers is that an important part of this initiative is to organise diversionary activities for young people in the area of the arts and sport, in order to keep them off the streets in the summer holidays. The evidence suggests that less crime is committed as a result.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that every year Westminster City Council carries out a survey of tourism in Westminster? The survey shows that 41 per cent of people spend only one day in London. One of their great complaints is about the beggars and the lack of personal safety in the city. Does she think it important that those issues should be addressed if London is to become a gateway? The city must attract people if they are to come to London and then go on from there.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course I agree. It is for those reasons as well as many others that the Prime Minister is determined that we should reduce the amount of street crime, not just in London, but across the country.

Lord Fearn: My Lords, will the Minister join me in congratulating the BTA, which, through its Britain Visitor Centre, now deals with 450,000 visitors a year? Most of those are shelved off to other areas of Britain. Many of them come to Southport for golf, because we have seven golf courses.

Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords. The Britain Visitor Centre in Regent Street, which is run by the BTA, has been enormously successful in getting visitors to come in and find out what is available around the country, including in Southport.

Money Laundering

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which government departments last year authorised or instigated the inquiries which bankers, accountants, stockbrokers and others were required to make of their customers to discourage money laundering; and what results ensued.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the role of the Government is to ensure that the necessary regulatory framework to fight money laundering is put in place. The law imposes specific duties on financial institutions, such as those of identifying customers and staff training. The provisions will be strengthened under Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, currently before your Lordships' House, and by forthcoming revisions to the money laundering regulations, which are the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 2001, 31,251 reports of suspected money laundering were submitted to the authorities by financial institutions and other bodies.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do not suppose that I have a chance of persuading the noble Lord that there is something reprehensible about twisting the arms of private sector organisations into grilling their customers for information, some of which they have already and other aspects of which are none of their business. I am not impressed by the noble Lord's bureaucratic answer, but perhaps I can persuade him that this is just another of those vexatious intrusions that cause the private, law-abiding individual a great deal of irritation and would not cause a money launderer to do more than twitch.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I suspect that my chances of persuading the noble Lord that the Government might have a point here are rather slim. Increasingly, we are getting tremendous levels of co-operation from the private sector. Some 62 per cent of reports of suspected money laundering activity come from banks, 14 per cent come building societies and 7 per cent come from other financial institutions. Surely this is an issue on which those on all sides of your Lordships' House should agree. We welcome support, particularly from the Opposition, for aspects of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, the aim of which is to tackle money laundering fundamentally. We should all support that.

Lord Sharman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the introduction of large denomination notes is a significant factor in the facility with which money may be laundered? What evaluation, if any, have the Government or the European Union made of the impact of the introduction of the 1,000 euro note on money laundering activities throughout Europe?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with his great knowledge of the accountancy profession, the noble Lord has got the better of my briefing. I am more than happy to indulge in some correspondence on the issue. The noble Lord's point is relevant.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the point made by my noble friend Lord Peyton ought to be addressed, not merely discarded as an unworthy consideration?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, makes a point, but I would have thought that it was in society's interests generally to tackle fundamentally issues such as money laundering, not least because it is greatly associated with evils such as drug trafficking, people trafficking and terrorism.

Lord Monson: My Lords, to demand of elderly people, who may have held an account with a particular bank for more than 65 years, that they must suddenly prove their identity is often alarming and always insulting. It shows that the Government's obsession with money laundering is going over the top. Secondly, if the requirement is to be extended to everyone in the country who holds a bank or building society account, what will be done about those many people who do not possess a passport or a photographic driving licence?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I had hoped that there would be Cross Bench support for our offensive on money laundering. It is not a matter of the law being overbearing. Surely this is a major issue. In 2000-01, £19 million was recovered as a product of our efforts to tackle drug trafficking and other criminal activity. That shows the extent of the problem that we are beginning to tackle fundamentally. I hope that the Government will be widely supported on that.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, has not my noble friend Lord Peyton touched on a point of great concern to all of us, as he so often does? Will the Minister cast his mind back to the wise advice of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, who said in the second of our emergency debates on terrorism that perhaps the best way to defeat terrorism was to follow the money? The noble and learned Lord told us that the Government had frozen, I think, £63,180,000 of terrorist-related finance in UK bank accounts. Can the Minister tell us what that figure is today?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have that figure at my fingertips. I am quite happy to undertake the research that the noble Lord suggests, and am more than happy to correspond with him on it.

Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister, like me, unsure as to where the Official Opposition are on this matter? May I assure him that we on these Benches are fully supportive of the Government's action on money laundering? Can he say whether there has been success in getting co-operation from professions other than banking, such as the accounting and the legal professions? It is quite clear that many professional advisers become involved in money laundering. Unless we all believe that it is our responsibility, the money launderers will succeed.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am drawn to supporting the noble Lord's comments. I, too, am puzzled as to where the Official Opposition are coming from on this issue. They have not been overly supportive of the Proceeds of Crime Bill. The noble Lord is also right to draw attention to the important role of other professions in this field. Of the many thousands of reports made to NCIS, only 0.35 per cent come from accountants and only 1 per cent from the legal profession. Noble Lords might be drawn to conclude that these professions could be more helpful to the police in their inquiries.

Coal Industry

Lord Dormand of Easington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their long-term policy for the coal industry, including the import of foreign coal.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government's long-term policy for the coal industry is being reviewed in the context of the new European coal state aid regulation. This allows countries to pay operating and investment aid. However, as with the current European rules, it prohibits state aid from allowing the price of subsidised coal to undercut international competition. As long as the competition is fair, we welcome the security and flexibility that the geopolitical diversity of coal suppliers provides.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend confirming that an agreement was recently reached in the European Union on state subsidies for deep-mined coal? If so, will he confirm that this country was fully involved in those talks and committed to the results? As the present aid scheme, as he knows, ran out last month, there has been urgent concern that the gap between operation of the new agreement and expiration of the old one might well lead to the closure of another six pits in this country. Will my noble friend confirm that the Government's policy is that coal will continue to play a major part in this country's energy mix, particularly as the demand for coal is now growing?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we were very pleased to be part of reaching the agreement, on 7th June, on the new European coal state aid regime. We fought very hard to secure the flexibility to pay investment aid and I am delighted that we were successful in that regard. The new rules will come into effect immediately after expiry of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty on 23rd July. Coal will continue to play a major part in our energy policy, but on the basis of the ability to draw on coal supplies from around the world.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 2001, after decreasing for a number of years, CO2 emissions in the UK increased because power generators switched from gas to cheap imported coal? Have the Government any plans actively to dissuade the generators from using cheap imported coal—even though such plans might risk provoking the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, as they would involve twisting the arm of an independent organisation? Does the Minister agree that reducing CO2 emissions must be the priority in this instance?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, reducing emissions is clearly one of the key objectives of our energy policy. One should always remember, however, that energy policy has a number of objectives: cost is one, environmental impact another, and energy security the third. Within that, we are very keen to promote the use of clean coal technology which is very relevant to this issue.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, in May 2002 alone, international coal production increased by more than 5 per cent, caused largely by the opening up of new capacity in China where wage levels are rather lower than they are in Europe. Do we really believe, as we have done in the past in other industries of this type, that there is any likelihood of reversing the trend of a steady reduction in British coal capacity?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that the issue of the future of individual coal-mines ultimately has to be a matter for the owners of those mines. We can only make certain that there is a fair market internationally for British coal and that British coal is not penalised by subsidies for other countries. That is what we are concerned to do.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, following the question of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford on CO2 emissions, does the Minister agree that the future of coal is closely linked with overcoming the current environmental objections to it, and that the most effective way of doing that is to develop the process of clean coal technology associated with CO2 recovery and storage? When will we have an effective demonstration plant to that effect in the United Kingdom? It would have enormous export potential.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the future of coal is closely linked with the question of its environmental impact. As the noble Lord will recall, we conducted a review of the possibility of a clean coal technology demonstration plant. We found that most of the available technologies have already been fully demonstrated. So there is really a very small case for a demonstration project. However, the review also concluded that there is a case for modest support for retrofitting more efficient combustion plant technology in existing power stations, particularly to help demonstrate the technology and to support exports—the point that the noble Lord raised. We are pursuing how best to take that particular project forward.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is desirable to maintain a sufficiently large coal industry in Britain to sustain our mining engineering technology industry? It currently has a considerable international opportunity, especially given its skill in safe mining, a need demonstrated only the other day by the disaster in the Ukraine.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is very difficult to argue that we should maintain the coal industry for the purpose of maintaining the coal mining technology industry which depends upon it. I think that we have to examine this issue fairly and squarely and try to sustain our coal industry. However, it will be sustained only if it can operate on an economic basis. I think that that has to be the first consideration.

Badgers

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they will take to deter and prosecute those responsible for digging and baiting badgers.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are committed to cracking down on wildlife crime, including badger crime, and provide strategic support for the network of police wildlife liaison officers through the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that badger digging and baiting continue in contempt of the law and with delight in the most cruel practices? Would it not be appropriate for the courts to provide a deterring sanction that can and should include the confiscation of that which is used in committing the offence, particularly the terriers and the motor vehicles without which these crimes could not proceed?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the penalties available to magistrates in the courts include a maximum penalty of a fine of £5,000 and/or six months' imprisonment. Where a dog has been used in the commission of an offence, the court may make an order for the destruction or disposal of the dog and disqualify the offender from keeping a dog. The magistrates can also consider carefully whether a vehicle was used as a tool in the commission of the crime.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the actual level of fines that are levied for this crime?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not able to give that detailed information to the noble Lord but I shall, of course, write to him. I do not know how long it will take to collate the information as I do not know whether it is collated nationally.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that much cruelty is caused to various wild species through non-management of those species? I refer, for example, to foxes with mange which stray through cities. On the "Today" programme this morning there was mention of the Scottish proposal to kill 5,000 hedgehogs when English gardeners are crying out for hedgehogs to predate on slugs which are an enormous problem in a wet summer such as we are having. Does not the Minister think that the Government should do more in terms of having a pro-active species management plan?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as regards hedgehogs, the report on the radio this morning was not accurate as it has not yet been decided what action should be taken. Press reports which state that there will be a cull are misleading. Hedgehogs are not native to the Scottish islands. Six years of research has demonstrated that they are a threat to dunlin, redshank, snipe and lapwing. That is a matter for the devolved administration in Scotland to consider. I am sure that the Scottish Parliament will consider any proposal that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, may wish to put forward with regard to the humane expatriation of hedgehogs to those gardens whose gardeners wish to have them. The treatment of foxes with mange in cities constitutes a more complex task. The management of wildlife in cities is difficult. I was not aware that foxes in cities contracted mange. I see foxes most frequently in Leicestershire. They certainly do not look mangy.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who owns a couple of badger setts, albeit in Scotland. I refer to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, and the fact that the curtailment of hunting with dogs would almost certainly cause a reduction in the number of privately funded individuals managing the welfare of wildlife. The Minister mentioned strategic support for wildlife officers, but have the Government quantified the number of new rangers, or the extra funding, that may be required to have in place people with powers to act against those who infringe the law we are discussing?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Duke has wide knowledge of this field but he asks a question that is impossible to answer simply because, as he is aware, at the moment there are detailed discussions within the European Union on the future of the CAP. Were the changes for which many noble Lords have pressed to be secured by the Government, there could be—I stress the words "could be"—a switch of funds from production to environmental protection. Therefore, it is impossible to measure against a moving target, even if it were possible to quantify the impact on the environment of the banning of fox hunting.

Lord Carter: My Lords, what is the latest situation regarding the badger culling trials? They were understandably delayed last year as resources were diverted to control the foot and mouth outbreak. Does my noble friend agree that it is important that the trials are brought to a speedy conclusion to enable us to know once and for all whether there is a link between bovine TB and badgers?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to say that diverting resources to the foot and mouth outbreak had a temporary impact on the trials. My noble friend will be pleased to learn that we expect the trials to finish only a few months later than they would otherwise have done. As my noble friend said, this is an extremely important matter. There is a strongly held rural belief that there is a link between badgers and the spread of bovine TB. However, we need clear evidence one way or the other.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend re-emphasise the final point in her initial Answer; namely, that the courts are entitled to order the confiscation of the motor car which is used to commit the offence?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I make clear that it is for the courts to reach their own judgment on cases; it is not for the Government to interfere in that. Having said that, the courts may take such matters into account in some cases. However, I stress that ultimately this must remain a matter for the courts. They must consider whether it would be appropriate in a particular instance to take such matters into account.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Sandler review of retail savings.

Business of the House: Standing Order 42

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 42 (Postponement and advancement of business) be dispensed with to allow the Motions standing in the name of the Baroness Amos on 16th July to be advanced to 10th July.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Finance Bill

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Finance Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages on Friday 12th July.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 14 [Establishment of centres]:

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 97:
	Page 9, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State may arrange for—
	(a) the provision of facilities at or near an accommodation centre for sittings of adjudicators appointed for the purpose of Part 5 in accordance with a determination of the Lord Chancellor under paragraph 2 of Schedule 4;
	(b) the provision of facilities at an accommodation centre for the taking of steps in connection with the determination of claims for asylum (within the meaning of section 16(3))."

Lord Filkin: As the Committee will be aware, although there has been support in principle for the idea of accommodation centres expressed by all three main parties both here and in another place, concerns have been expressed about whether in practice they would fulfil the potential that those on all sides of the Chamber would wish. Concerns have centred around the issue of whether in practice increased speed in dealing fully and fairly with applicants for asylum would be achieved through the use of accommodation centres.
	The specific challenge that was raised in another place concerned whether a paperchase would continue without having case workers and adjudicators on site to consider appeals in accommodation centres and that the sort of delays that have unfortunately been experienced when backlogs of asylum claims have built up might continue.
	This group of amendments relate to the issue of undertaking appeal hearings and casework on site at accommodation centres in order to create a "one-stop shop". The Home Secretary said that he was sympathetic to an amendment tabled in the other place by the right honourable Member for West Dorset, Oliver Letwin. He accepted that there should be a presumption that adjudicators should be on site in the trial accommodation centres, and that he would talk to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor about the best way to organise it with a view to bringing forward a government amendment to make clear our intentions on the face of the Bill.
	We have now discussed matters with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and concluded that it would be appropriate to amend Clause 14. Clause 14 provides that the Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of premises (to be called "accommodation centres") for the accommodation of persons in accordance with Part 2 of the Bill. It provides the necessary powers for funding and building accommodation centres. The government amendment reflects our firm intention that accommodation centres should be about more than just housing and supporting asylum seekers. It provides us with an express power to fund and build hearing facilities and caseworking facilities at an accommodation centre, so that we may integrate support and processing and take an holistic approach to dealing with asylum seekers' claims.
	It is for the Lord Chancellor to determine where immigration adjudicators sit to hear appeals. It would not be appropriate for the Home Secretary, as the Secretary of State with responsibility for determining asylum claims, to direct adjudicators to sit at accommodation centres. The amendment therefore does not seek to do that. The Lord Chancellor, by virtue of Schedule 4, already has the power to direct adjudicators to sit at times and places that are determined by him. Thus, if Members of the Committee agree to the amendment, the Lord Chancellor may direct adjudicators to sit at accommodation centres in hearing facilities that will be provided by the Home Secretary as part of the wider accommodation centre complex.
	1 say "wider accommodation centre complex" because it is important that we preserve and are seen to be preserving the independence of the judiciary. It is not just a matter of providing a couple of rooms for adjudicators within the accommodation centre and asking them to get on with it. Hearing rooms need to be separate from the accommodation centre, with a separate identity. So the adjudicator needs to be next door—on hand rather than on site. The amendment deals with that by referring to hearing facilities "at or near" an accommodation centre.
	The opposition amendments, which have not yet been moved, seek to require us to take decisions, hear appeals and serve decisions on site at accommodation centres. We cannot agree to that requirement but I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that in spirit and in practical application we are not so far apart.
	We agree that it is desirable that as many facilities as possible should be available to asylum seekers on site at accommodation centres. We are trialling accommodation centres to see if they work and, as part of that trial, we want to test the hypothesis that co-location of the casework and appeals functions will help to minimise delay.
	However, we need to bear two things in mind. First, accommodation centres are a trial and therefore we need flexibility to try out approaches. Secondly, we need to have regard for taxpayers' money.
	In respect of hearing facilities, evidence from the Immigration Appellate Authority already suggests that smaller hearing centres are less efficient and therefore more expensive overall than larger ones. I have already explained that hearing facilities cannot just be a couple of hearing rooms. In addition to courtrooms, we need office space for adjudicators, presenting officers and support staff. We also need a waiting area for appellants and consultation rooms for them to meet legal advisers in private. That is quite a substantial funding commitment. Opposition Members of the Committee have been making the case for smaller centres and we have undertaken to look seriously at that. However, Members of the Committee cannot have it both ways. If we are to have a genuine trial with flexibility for smaller centres, which the legislation provides, the legislation must also provide for flexibility in respect of some on-site services.
	The Immigration Appellate Authority is currently expanding to meet its commitment to take on 6,000 appeals per month from November this year. It is opening up new hearing facilities around the country. I hope that Members of the Committee agree that it would not be good value for money if, for example, facilities were readily accessible from an accommodation centre but we were expressly obliged by statute to build a brand new hearing centre next door to the accommodation centre. That is what Amendment No. 109 would require.
	I have discussed appeals. The noble Baroness's amendment also seeks to require us to take asylum decisions on site. Again, we cannot support the literal interpretation of that because we believe that it would unnecessarily straitjacket our ability to deal with cases as efficiently as possible. Nevertheless, there is some support for her objective.
	A blanket requirement for all decisions to be made on site would remove the flexibility to respond to surges in intake and staff fluctuations (for example, through illness) by reducing our ability to use the main Croydon and Liverpool caseworking groups as back-up, as well as sources of expertise for difficult cases. Members of the Committee may think that I am being unduly negative. I am not seeking to be; I merely want to make it clear that a blanket requirement is not the way in which to achieve efficiency, although I do not necessarily believe that that is what lies behind the amendment.
	It may help if I explain what we actually intend to do. Our general presumption is that both caseworking and appeal hearings should take place on site at accommodation centres unless there are sound pragmatic reasons for not doing so. To that extent we have been persuaded by the Opposition's arguments, which were advanced in another place and in this place at Second Reading. We intend to co-locate hearing facilities with the trial accommodation centres in all circumstances where it makes sense to do so. As I have mentioned, exceptions might be if there were existing hearing facilities within striking distance, which it would not be sensible to replace.
	By caseworking on site, again based on pragmatism, what we intend is that the initial interview should take place on site, any further representations should be received on site and all decisions, including appeal determinations, should be served on site. The full case-file would remain on site while the applicant is resident there and appeals would be lodged on site. With all of that face-to-face activity taking place on site, the strong likelihood would be that it would make sense to take decisions on site, too. So we would plan to do that, but with flexibility to do what works best and to call on central resources where necessary.
	With those undertakings, I hope that both Opposition Benches recognise that we have moved a considerable way towards meeting the arguments that were made in another place. I also hope that they will accept that the amendment is reasonable and that the noble Baroness will agree not to press her amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 109 and 136, which are in my name. They are grouped with government Amendment No. 97, which the Minister has just moved. They were tabled before the government amendment, which is extremely welcome. My questions will simply seek elucidation of the Minister's remarks. I welcome the amount of information that he has given and his undertakings with regard to proceedings on site. He has successfully managed to head off a number of questions with those undertakings.
	As the Minister said, there is support in principle for the building of accommodation centres as a way in which to process asylum claims faster, more effectively and in a manner that is fairer to those in the centres and to those who are considering coming to this country. We support the principles that were enunciated by the Minister. He rightly referred to the concerns expressed in another place and to the fact that when my right honourable friend Mr Letwin sought to introduce a new clause on Report on 11th June to ensure that the adjudicators would make their decisions on site, the Home Secretary offered to speak to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the chief adjudicator about the best way forward. I welcome the progress that has been made since then; it resulted in the amendment.
	As the Minister said, the government amendment is different from my amendments in one clear respect. The government amendment states that adjudicators will not necessarily be on site but that they will be "near an accommodation centre". He sought to argue that the Opposition cannot have it both ways with regard to changes to the way in which accommodation centres are built and run. He suggested that if we want smaller centres that may be sited near urban areas, there has to be some flexibility with regard to the services that are provided. He also said that the Lord Chancellor already has the power to determine where adjudicators may sit and that it is up to the Lord Chancellor to determine where they should sit. I certainly accept that that is the case.
	I welcome the information that was given by the Minister about the facilities that would be required properly to provide services for adjudication. He talked about the importance of the judiciary being seen to be independent as well as being independent. Certainly I appreciate that that is always the case. I recall the time when magistrates' courts commonly sat either in police stations or in part of a police station site considered to be appropriate. During the building programme of the past 20 years, magistrates' courts have been seen to be independent by being sited separately. I am sure that the Government are right to seek to ensure that any adjudicator who hears a case should be seen to be independent of the government. That ensures, first, that the asylum seeker should be in that accommodation centre, having no choice as to where he should live, and, secondly, that he should then have the application processed by the adjudicator.
	I accept much of the Minister's argument that perhaps adjudicators should not always be directed to be present on site. I still have some concerns about the fact that, under the noble Lord's amendment, asylum seekers may well have to travel some distance from one accommodation centre to another in order to seek advice. Of course, if the Government persist in their current intention to build accommodation centres at rather remote places, it is possible that the level of rural bus services will simply not be sufficient to provide easy access for people to adjudication services. I think in particular of families with children and the elderly and infirm.
	Therefore, although I welcome the commitment shown by the Government today, I shall have to reserve my position over the summer in order to take advice on these matters from the Immigration Advisory Service and ILPA. I want to know what implications they see for applicants as a result of the commitments which the Minister has made today and of which we did not have prior knowledge.

Earl Russell: I, too, welcome both the Minister's amendment and the speech which he made in putting it before us. It reassured me on a number of points about which I had previously been in a little doubt. I also express my agreement with the vast majority of what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said and express approval of her Amendment No. 109.
	The idea that hearings should take place at the centres, or as near as is convenient to them, is important. Incidentally, it will save the Minister from a long string of questions from my noble friend Lord Greaves about the timing of the earliest trains from Preston to London. Some of the early hearings conducted by NASS were something of a dog's breakfast. Indeed, they were appropriately timed before the earliest train that would enable the asylum seeker to get there so that he would end up spending the night sleeping on Euston Station. I believe that the amendment will get us away from that situation.
	I take the noble Lord's point about the independence of the judiciary. It explains a number of points which I should have spotted were due to that but where the amendment is not particularly specific, clearly because it is not within the noble Lord's authority to make it so.
	I take his point with regard to flexibility; that is, that where there is an appropriate building next door, it is absurd to insist on a purpose-built building to avoid a walk of a couple of hundred yards. On the other hand, I also take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. It is a different matter when one is dealing with families with children, but without the language, who must take bus journeys of 20 or 30 miles or perhaps half-way across a county, probably run under rather erratic and infrequent services. This will clearly be a matter of horses for courses. One cannot account for that type of situation in the drafting of general primary legislation; nor, indeed, I suspect, in the drafting of general secondary legislation. It will be a matter for consultation and for reasonableness, and I welcome the Minister's commitment to undertake to do that.
	However, from our point of view, one vitally important element is still missing from the amendment. It does not lay on the Secretary of State any duty to make legal advice available at the centre. The Secretary of State "may" arrange for,
	"the provision of facilities at an accommodation centre for the taking of steps in connection with the determination of claims for asylum".
	But it does not say that he "shall", and it does not say that he will make legal advice available for claimants.
	Throughout, the Government have been concerned about speed, and I understand why. I have heard of cases of asylum seekers who have waited for a decision on their application for as long as 10 years. I shall not soon forget hearing Lord Taylor of Gosforth very shortly before he died describing the time-consuming character of listening to a litigant in person. Therefore, in terms of speed there are advantages in legal advice being available on site.
	There are also advantages in terms of reasonableness, fairness and a level playing field between the Home Office and the applicant. The Home Secretary occasionally sounds as though he has a problem with what he describes as "ingenious" lawyers. One does not always feel certain that the adjective is intended as praise. Perhaps I may offer him a quotation from Mr Justice Megarry:
	"As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations that, by discussion, suffered a change".
	It is perhaps, ultimately, not so very different from politics.
	The earlier in the process that those matters are cleared up, the more quickly and more fairly the issue can be resolved. I believe that that is in the interest of both the Home Office and the applicant. It has been our opinion throughout that the major cause of delay in the asylum system is the poor quality of the initial decision-making: the insistence on an appropriate standard of proof; inaccurate information on the country concerned; or, occasionally, simply insufficient attention to the evidence provided.
	All that can be put right more quickly if the applicant has access to legal advice at the earliest possible moment. That is most likely to produce a quick decision and a fair one. That is a point to which we on these Benches must return. However, with that single reservation, I welcome the Minister's amendment, I thank him for it and I am happy to accept it.

Baroness Whitaker: I rise in support of Amendment No. 97, but, following the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I simply want to ask my noble friend whether he will clarify one point. Incidentally, I apologise to my noble friend for having just missed the beginning of his introduction, but I am advised that he did not mention this point. Will he clarify that the legal advice which the Secretary of State may arrange for, if, indeed, that is what is meant in the amendment, should be independent? Will he also clarify that information should be made available to people in the accommodation centres as to what that advice should consist of and what their rights are?
	The other document at which I am looking is the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, where we made it clear that we believed that people in accommodation centres should have independent legal advice and also information about their rights and where the legal advice was. Therefore, I hope that that can be positively clarified in my noble friend's response.

Lord Dholakia: Perhaps the Minister will answer one or two questions in his response. While I express our broad support for the amendment, the Minister talked about the provision for adjudicators and appeals. One area with which we are concerned is the relationship between the appeal mechanism and those who provide advice—in this instance, we are talking about bodies such as the Immigration Advisory Service, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the Refugee Council and the Refugee Legal Centre. All those bodies which provide on-the-spot advice will have to travel substantial distances for this purpose.
	Do the Government understand that in many cases they are hand-to-mouth organisations, which depend on a substantial amount of charitable funds and, in some cases, government grants? Do they intend to ensure that such organisations are appropriately grant-aided in order to function effectively? That would not only be in the interests of the individual but in the interests of justice.

Lord Hylton: When we consider this government amendment we need to keep a sense of proportion. We must remember that something like 2 to 3 per cent of all existing and future asylum cases will relate to people accommodated in accommodation centres. That will be the situation up until at least 2006. If Members of the Committee wonder why I think that those are the correct proportions, I refer them to the helpful notes produced by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
	I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it will be just as important that the centres provide the highest quality first decisions. If we can achieve that high quality there will be fewer appeals and fewer cases referred for judicial review. Independent legal advice has been mentioned. I hope that the Government will reassure us that that will be fully provided and, in some cases, fully funded.
	Another point arises from getting good quality first decisions; that is, the vital need for interpreters for those asylum seekers who do not have a command of English. As I may have said before, it will be important to ensure that the interpreters are capable of entering, in a sympathetic way, into the difficult situation which often faces an asylum seeker. I look forward to further government reassurance on at least two counts.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Like all who have spoken, I welcome the Minister's proposals and the fact that it is now intended that adjudicators should be available at accommodation centres. Perhaps I may refer to a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If one is to have early and fair adjudications, it is equally important that the asylum seeker should have the opportunity of having available to him independent legal advice. The noble Earl suggested that at present that is not fully covered by the Bill. If it is not—I rather thought it was—can the Minister assure the Committee that he will also consider that matter? It seems to me that the success of this part of the Bill will depend on the ability to provide a system which will allow for adjudication as quickly and fairly as possible and, as a result, will lead to as few appeals as possible.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Some of the centres are likely to be in Scotland. Amendment No. 97 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, to which the amendment refers, explains that the Lord Chancellor will decide where and when adjudicators will sit. I have always understood that the Lord Chancellor's Writ does not run in Scotland. I wonder whether the amendment will need to be amended to take account of that fact or whether there will be a further amendment from the Government.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I join the general welcome given to the government amendments by Members of the Committee and underline the critical importance of early and easy access to legal advice. The Minister will be aware that a number of the voluntary organisations which have been involved at Oakington from the start of the process had and still have access to give both legal and expert advice to those who are there as part of the process of dealing with asylum applications.
	After the first few months of the opening of that centre, the voluntary agencies concerned in offering such advice were comfortable with the fact that in a high percentage of cases—I cannot remember the exact figure; it may be that my noble friend has that to hand—the initial advice offered had been subsequently upheld in the appeals process. That is a great tribute to the organisations involved at Oakington. It also raises another point, which is easy to overlook.
	As far as I am aware—perhaps my noble friend will confirm this—nowhere in that process are the Government concerned with the provision of legal advice to those seeking asylum. That is traditionally left either to independent lawyers or, indeed, to voluntary and charitable agencies which specialise in that field. It is not a matter for the Government. The only responsibility—I believe that is the best word—resting on the Government as part of that process is to provide suitable accommodation for those willing to provide such advice at the premises in which those seeking asylum are to be found.
	That is an extremely important point. Surely, the whole of the Bill is concerned with making the process more sensible, fairer and faster. Everyone then knows exactly where they are from start to finish and are then given leave to remain; granted refugee status; or told that they cannot stay here and, where safe to do so, returned to their country. The provision of early advice, which is easily accessible at the start of the process and throughout, is critical. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that that has been a success where practised at Oakington.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It might be convenient at this point to state that I look forward to receiving the support of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when finally we reach Amendment No. 118 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. That amendment seeks to achieve exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, hopes for; that is, the provision of legal services on site at accommodation centres. The amendment appears in its proper place in Clause 26.

Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question which has been running through my mind during the debate. He spoke about "trialling" the accommodation. Presumably he means that initially only a single accommodation centre will be built at which the Government will test the availability of all the facilities to see whether or not they work before they go on to spend hundreds of millions of pounds in rolling out the whole programme.
	Can the Minister assure the Committee that the Government will not embark upon the whole programme until the first test has been fully undertaken and everyone can see how it works so that an awful lot of money is not wasted on providing facilities that may not be right for the purpose?
	I sympathise with everything the Minister said when introducing this group of amendments. We certainly agree that on the whole it is best if the facilities can be provided either on site or in the immediate neighbourhood of the accommodation centres. However, let us first see how it works before we embark on an expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds.

Earl Russell: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Her Amendment No. 118 is a good one and I welcome it. Its sits next to our Amendment No. 117, which says exactly the same thing. I would be happy with either of the amendments and am perfectly happy to leave the choice to the Minister.

Lord Filkin: I am deeply troubled to hear of this fraternisation taking place on the Opposition Benches, given the dire import for subsequent stages that it might imply. Seriously, I thank both Opposition Benches for their generally supportive comments and for the commonsense way in which they have responded to what we have said.
	The first point concerns the Government's commonsense approach. If there is already an adjudication centre near an accommodation centre one would not want to be forced to build a new one. Clearly, that would be nonsense. The debate related to how far away it would be reasonable to have one. The short answer is that in the trials—we intend that there should be four pilots rather than the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred—the presumption is that there would be adjudication on site, unless there were very good reasons not to have it.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, answered the question as well as it could be answered. He signalled that these matters could not be specified further in terms of any roll-out of the programme, either in primary or secondary legislation. One would have to look at the experience of the early centres and see what was workable. The spirit of the matter is to try to speed up processing while retaining fairness. Therefore, one is trying to avoid either paper chases or people chases or adjudicators having to waste time. We are trying to maximise the amount of co-location as is sensibly possible.
	We shall be referring to legal advice. Therefore, I shall not deal with it exhaustively at this point, except to mark that in general terms there are benefits in having independent legal advice available at all stages. The one area of difference is that the Government do not believe that it is essential for a legal adviser to be present at an initial interview. That is frequently the case, but we do not believe that the absence of a lawyer should inhibit the proceedings of the initial interview.
	My noble friend Lady Whitaker and one or two other noble Lords raised the question of facilities. The noble Baroness asked about facilities on site. The Home Secretary, through the Bill and his powers, is providing facilities on site to enable interviews between an independent lawyer, or an independent voluntary organisation, and his client to take place in private—all the necessary facilities that support an independent judicial process, which is what a hearing before an adjudicator is.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the appeal mechanism and how it will work in practice. The simplest way to illustrate that is if, as we intend, these centres contain 750 people, up to 1,000 to 1,500 initial considerations and a potentially near to that number of appeals could take place each year. Already that gives a picture. It starts to be efficient and potentially economic to bring other support facilities closer on site. It makes it easier to provide independent legal advice to asylum seekers, which is funded by the Legal Services Commission. It may make it easier for voluntary organisations to have a presence—not necessarily a permanent one but a supportive presence—on site.
	However, we do not have a fixed view on that issue with regard to NGOs, the Refugee Council and the Immigration Advisory Service. We want to consider further and to look at the implications of how co-location of those functions can assist in the voluntary sector's contribution. We shall, as ever, be open to receiving its views and thoughts in that respect.
	I was asked a good question by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. The Lord Chancellor's writ does not run to Scotland. As she knows, it is the Lord Advocate. I am told that we shall consider the point further and consider whether we need to make specific provision in respect of Scotland. I think that that counts as a half hit at least.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, marked, quite rightly, that initially this is a trial whereby we shall test whether what we believe to be sound policy and practice works well. In the early years most decisions will not be taken in accommodation centres; the existing processes will continue. I agree with the noble Lord on his central point that high-quality first decisions lead to fewer—I am not sure that they lead to fewer appeals but certainly they lead to fewer successful judicial reviews. There is evidence to support that. So I am with the spirit if not the full detail of his point.
	The noble Lord made a point about the importance of interpretation on site. He spoke of the potential benefits in having decent sized accommodation centres with concentration by particular language groupings making the provision of interpretation facilities simpler. As he rightly said, it is crucial that people are advised both about the process and about their rights.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, spoke about early and fair adjudication. I strongly agree with him. In a sense that issue is not specifically covered by the Bill, although we shall debate the matter later as signposted by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
	My noble friend Lord Corbett made similar points about the contribution of NGOs and of the benefit of legal advice. He spoke also of how well, by and large, despite initial concerns, the Oakington centre works. One cannot necessarily read across from Oakington to accommodation centres, but one should not believe that specialist bodies, organisations or facilities necessarily are against the interests of applicants. Clearly, they have led to faster decision-making at Oakington, which we hope will be one of the benefits of accommodation centres.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, marked that there were four centres in the initial trial or pilot. He then asked about research evaluation. They will be evaluation-led by the research division of the Home Office. We have not yet finalised the detail of that. But it is likely to be ongoing action monitoring and research so that we try to learn the lessons relatively rapidly, rather than running them for two years, letting a university contract and then waiting for another two years at the end. For reasons which noble Lords will understand, that would be too slow. But we expect that there will be a thorough evaluation, which is objectively done. No doubt we shall have an opportunity at a subsequent stage to explore its findings.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Retail Savings

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Statement is as follows:
	"I would like to make a Statement about the Sandler review, published this morning, and the Government's preliminary reactions to it.
	"Twelve months ago, the Government asked Ron Sandler to review the market for medium and long-term retail and I am extremely grateful to him for his work in producing this report.
	"Its remit was,
	'to identify the competitive forces and incentives that drive the industries concerned, in particular in relation to their approaches to investment, and, where necessary, to suggest policy responses to ensure that consumers are well served. It will look at the applicability of the principles of investment proposed by the Myners review of Institutional Investment'.
	"Ron Sandler's recommendations have the potential to bring benefits for consumers and for the retail investment industry and to improve the workings of the market. They will mean more competition, greater efficiency and more productive investment.
	"That builds on the agenda we started in 1997 in introducing ISAs, CAT standards and stakeholder pensions as simple, easy to understand savings vehicles. They also build on our agenda to improve the effectiveness and competition within financial markets.
	"The review proposes a set of simple, safer investment products—that it calls 'stakeholder products', building on the concept of stakeholder pensions and CAT standards. These products would have a strict cap on charges, restrictions on investment profile and the ability to exit easily on reasonable terms. As regulation would be built into the products themselves, firms would be allowed to sell them through a streamlined system of sales regulation.
	"A set of 'stakeholder products' would provide safer, good value products that ordinary people can understand. Greater focus on product design could clear the way for a streamlined sales process. This would make it profitable for providers and distributors to sell to a wider range of less well-off people. That will encourage people to save.
	"The review shows how the sales process for investment products can be costly and time-consuming, disenfranchising many on low and middle incomes from investment that would benefit them.
	"Shifting the burden of regulation from the sales process to the products themselves, for products aimed at the smaller investor, would help to improve access to saving without sacrificing consumer protection. For people with more sophisticated investments, more complicated products may still be appropriate. The new products would therefore not replace but complement the existing market and for many products the present regulatory approach should remain.
	"Building on the review's suggestions, we will consult consumers' representatives, the industry and the Financial Services Authority on the stakeholder products and their design. We shall work closely with the FSA, which will want separately to consult on the regime for their sale.
	"I should stress that seeing value in simpler products with simpler sales regulation does not mean that we do not value financial advice. On the contrary, the review presents a challenge for the industry and others to think radically about how it provides advice. Advice is too often understood as an adjunct to a sale, not something valued in its own right. As a result, it is perceived as costly, time-consuming and inaccessible to those on low incomes. But it is simply not the case that only the wealthy need or would benefit from advice.
	"The review's proposals should make it possible for the industry to offer to the mass market good quality, high-level advice that helps people to understand their financial needs and the products that can meet them as a complement to the sale of stakeholder products. I look forward to the industry response.
	"Those on lower incomes also need financial advice. Citizens advice bureaux and other money advice centres across the country offer good quality, impartial advice to many people in financial difficulty. People have argued that their remit should cover financial advice more generally. I am pleased to say that the FSA has offered to fund research into extending the role that those organisations may be able to play. I welcome that, and look forward to reading the results.
	"The review proposes reform to with-profits policies and describes an ideal model of such a policy. It would still allow the smoothing features that so many investors have found valuable, but it would be transparent, allowing investors to understand and choose the policy that is best for their needs. It would also clearly separate policyholders' and shareholders' interests, which are intertwined in the current, dominant 90:10 model.
	"The review does not propose that every aspect of the ideal model should be mandatory—except for a with-profits policy sold as part of the stakeholder suite of products. But it suggests that much of the transparency of the ideal model could be applied to existing with-profits policies.
	"With-profits policies are a huge feature of the British savings landscape. Many people have valued—and will continue to value—being able to smooth out investment returns. So change in the market cannot come overnight. But with-profits policies need to change. Indeed, recent work by the FSA and the industry itself has already begun that process. The review proposes a balanced approach that represents an opportunity to move to a new, stable future for the with-profits market.
	"The FSA will consult on the review's proposals on with-profits policies, which build on earlier work that it has carried out as part of its continuing consultation on with-profits policies. The review strongly supports the FSA's proposals to reform the market for the distribution of investment products. It also makes some specific recommendations about how independent financial advisers should be remunerated.
	"It will be for the FSA to consider the review's recommendations as part of its consultations on reforming the 'polarisation' system. But it has the potential to bring benefits of increased choice for the majority of consumers who currently invest through the tied channels, which offer the products of only one provider.
	"The review proposes an increased and ring-fenced consumer education budget for the FSA and better co-ordination of the Government's work to provide financial education. The FSA has welcomed that suggestion and will consult on whether to increase its consumer education budget. Meanwhile, the Treasury has begun work to co-ordinate the Whitehall effort devoted to financial education.
	"The retail savings market is clearly one that many consumers find complex and hard to understand. One answer to that is to simplify the market. But the essential complement to simplification is creating better financial knowledge among consumers and driving competition. The review proposes a set of investment principles for providers of retail investment products, building on the approach taken in the Myners review. The review proposes that this disclosure should, in most cases, be voluntary. The Government agree that such disclosure should help to produce a more transparent, better informed and hence more competitive market. We shall be advancing that proposal in consultation with consumer representatives, the industry and the FSA.
	"Finally, the review contains a wide-ranging analysis of the impact of the taxation system on the savings industry, urging that the system should be as simple as possible. It makes several proposals on specific current tax rules: abolishing qualifying life policies and the 5 per cent tax deferred withdrawal rule for life insurance policies; equalising treatment with respect to exemption from value added tax on fund management fees; simplifying the pensions tax regime; considering changing the rules for individual pension accounts; and revisiting the maxi/mini-individual savings account distinction. We shall consider the review's proposals on tax as part of the Budget process in the usual way.
	"Ron Sandler has a produced a set of proposals that have the potential to produce a simpler, more transparent and more competitive retail investment industry. In so far as his proposals relate to pensions saving, they will also be advanced in the context of the Government's proposals on pensions, which we will set out this autumn. The Government believe that Ron Sandler has tackled long-standing concerns about with-profits policies, giving the industry the chance to draw a line under the problems of the past and to build a new, stable future for with-profits schemes. His proposed stakeholder products, which will be easier for people to understand and viable to sell to a wider range of less well-off people, can only help to meet our ambition to raise the level of long-term saving."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Financial Secretary. I also declare an interest as chairman of a company pension fund.
	Some aspects of the report are certainly to be welcomed—for example, the proposals for education and the careful analysis of with-profit policies. But the report must be appraised against the current background of a crisis in pensions provision that is a cause of grave concern and of a collapse in savings. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what is the present savings ratio compared to 1997. I understand that it has virtually halved in that period—obviously a matter of great concern.
	Clearly, some causes of that situation are beyond the Government's control, but many—perhaps most—are the result of government action: most notoriously, perhaps, the stealth tax on pensions introduced by the Chancellor in his first Budget. I say a stealth tax, but the effect of that change is now all too apparent. Since then, the pensions industry has suffered a loss of about £5 billion a year—effectively, a reduction in savings. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what he estimates to be the total increase in Government revenue as a result of that change since they first came to office.
	Perhaps the report's most important recommendation is the call for simplification—what it calls its driving principle—and the proposals for so-called stakeholder products. That must obviously be considered against the background of the Government's introduction of stakeholder pensions, but that matter is dealt with only briefly at paragraph 5.70.
	It is apparent that take-up of stakeholder pensions by the target group has been disappointing, to say the least. They were aimed at about 5 million people who have no pension provision. In fact, the report suggests that only 631,000 policies have been sold. It is not even known exactly how many of those were hitting the target audience. The figure seems likely to be about 100,000, about 2 per cent of the target. It is rather surprising that the report is so enthusiastic about stakeholder products, given the limited success of the stakeholder pension.
	Of course, the whole problem of complexity is partly due to the Government themselves. We could take for example the proposal to renege—that is the right word—on the manifesto promise to retain SERPS and to substitute a second state pension that, many expert commentators believe, should not go ahead.
	However much one simplifies, the real reason why there is such a problem is that savings depend on confidence. That is not dealt with adequately in the report. In many respects, the Government have undermined confidence. As my honourable friend Mr Willetts pointed out in another place a few weeks ago, ahead of anyone else, the Government overestimated the extent of savings in this country by £35 billion, because of double counting. They then tried to blame the mistake on the Office for National Statistics, and now, following that, they want to change the definition to include other asset classes to make the figure look better. I hope that the Minister can give us the Government's present estimate of the true figure for savings, with which the report is concerned.
	Confidence has been undermined in a series of other ways. There was the disaster—tragedy, perhaps—of Equitable Life. Instead of setting up a single inquiry with adequate powers to go into the matter, the Government set up a multiplicity of inquiries, only one of which has, so far, seen the light of day. One cannot help but feel that it is partly because the industry—Equitable Life, in particular—was supervised by the Treasury at an earlier period that that is the case. That has also shaken confidence.
	Perhaps the most important effect on savings is that caused by the minimum income guarantee and the enormous increase in means-testing under this Government. I think I am right in saying that the report does not cover that matter. If people invest in the way the report suggests, they may find that, when they retire, they will get absolutely nothing for their savings because they will have been deducted from the minimum income guarantee. The Minister shakes his head. Can he tell us how much one would need to have in a savings fund in order to get any benefit over and above the minimum income guarantee at retirement?
	Confidence has also been undermined by the situation in the stock market. In its second paragraph, addressed to the Chancellor, the report says that consumers have benefited from equity market returns in recent decades, indicating an incentive to save. Can the Minister tell us to what extent the value of the stock market has increased since the Government came to power?
	The crucial issue here is the transfer of assets between one generation and another and the extent to which a particular generation makes provision for its future. We find the Government adopting an extraordinary position and failing to tell us their estimate of the value, in terms of liabilities, of the basic state pension. The way in which statistics are not revealed is extraordinary; it is difficult for the public, the Government and, indeed, the House to appraise the true position.
	The present situation is dangerous. We must hope that the report helps to achieve some improvement, particularly with regard to taxation. The changes in taxation have done little, if anything, to improve savings. The opening words of the statement were about individual savings accounts, which were, of course, less generous than the personal equity plans they replaced. That is typical of the way in which the Government fail to deal with the fundamentals. We must hope that the report will be helpful and that the Government will pay attention to what has been said. In particular, we must hope that the Chancellor's taxation policies improve the situation: so far, they most certainly have not.

Lord Sharman: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place.
	On these Benches, we welcome this thorough review. We are cognisant of the words of Sheila McKechnie, who said:
	"This is a powerful report. It has correctly diagnosed the fundamental failings of the financial services industry. It offers a way forward which focuses on the needs of consumers, not industry".
	The report is underpinned by some good, hard-hitting analysis that shows the lack of transparency and competitive forces in the industry. The industry is shown to operate in a market distorted by commission-based selling and, as the Consumers' Association said, is full of,
	"poor products, bad advice and failed regulation".
	The report makes some good, practical recommendations, especially those relating to a new generation of products tailored to low income groups. We welcome specifically the notion of the introduction of simple, regulated products. We like the idea of simplifying the tax structure, which is also recommended. The recommendations relating to the need for clarity about financial products, for removal of unnecessary jargon and for demystification of with-profits funds are also particularly good.
	I note that the report asks for a clear definition of mis-selling. That would be desirable. If nothing else, such a move would cut compliance costs. The proposal that exit charges for withdrawal from funds should be regulated is particularly welcome. Anybody who suggests—as the report does—that financial advisers should have further in-depth training will have my support.
	Several questions are left open. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about how the Government propose to deal with the gap in savings. The industry cannot do it. Sandler opposes tax incentives. The Government oppose compulsion. What is left? Do the Government have a target, and can the Minister tell us what it is? Can the Minister give an outline of the Government's strategy to fill the gap?
	How is consumer confidence in financial advice to be restored? Will the Government consider radical options, such as asking—or telling—the industry to get together with the citizens advice bureaux to promote a nation-wide pro bono financial advice service? How is the confidence of consumers who have been seriously ripped off to be restored? When will the Government-sponsored Penrose report be available, so that we can draw a line under the Equitable Life debacle? If the Government will not agree to a comprehensive review of the mis-selling of endowment mortgages, will they, at least, name and shame the main culprits? When will the Government introduce new rules for orphan assets that will prevent companies from expropriating policyholders' funds for their shareholders?
	I conclude by welcoming the report. Ron Sandler has done a thorough job. Most of all, he has shown us that there is a great deal of work to be done.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in all honesty, I can thank only the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, for his welcome for the review. In a dense and closely argued speech, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said not a single word about whether Mr Sandler had done a good job. I suppose that, given the weakness of his fundamental position, there was not much else that the noble Lord could do.
	It strikes me as extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, should use as the basis of his attack a comment on the collapse of the savings ratio. Yes, the savings ratio today is 5.6 per cent; and, yes, in the mid 1990s it was of the order of 10 per cent. Therefore, the noble Lord is correct in saying that the savings ratio has declined.
	But savings ratios are not an end in themselves. It depends what savings are for. Apart from an investment in pensions, we see net savings as being thoroughly desirable. They are necessary for people and households to have for family occasions, university education or whatever. We are certainly anxious to improve the savings ratio. However, much of the saving in the 1980s and 1990s under the noble Lord's government was a hedge against the mismanagement of the economy for which his party was responsible. People had to save because they did not know what would happen to inflation; what would happen to interest rates; or what would happen to their jobs. We now have a more stable economy with stable interest rates and we have a recovering employment situation. Under those circumstances, it is not surprising that there should be a reduction in the savings ratio.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, moved on to the familiar attack on what he called the "stealth tax" in pensions. It was the removal of the double tax incentive for pension schemes which ensured that the companies in which investments were made distributed dividends rather than investing in the future of their companies and of this country. If the noble Lord is arguing that savings depend on confidence—and he did so repeatedly in his speech—he must recognise that the pensions industry is part of the economy of this country and a large part of investment in our service and manufacturing industry. He must recognise that the success of the economy has made it possible for us to correct the imbalances and imperfections in the taxation system relating to pensions.
	The noble Lord approves of the proposals for simplification, but implies that stakeholder pensions are not a success. The figure is more like 820,000 rather than the 600,000 that he mentioned. But we are talking about the first year and we believe that there has been a promising start. We agree with Ron Sandler that the analogy between stakeholder pensions, with a cap on charges and greatly simplified provisions, is the correct one for the medium and long-term savings industry. I am pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, agrees with that point.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, then asked what happened to our manifesto promise to maintain SERPS—and that from the representative of a party which did its best to destroy SERPS in 1988. It removed the link between earnings and benefits and did everything it could to get people out of SERPS. It even went so far as to remove the condition that employers could require that their employees contributed to a pension scheme. I would like to know whether he now believes that any of the changes made in 1988, which we have had to correct at great cost with the state second pension, were justifiable.
	The noble Lord had some justification in mentioning the mistake that was made on double counting. We have apologised for that mistake and we have corrected it.
	It is remarkable that he should say that under this Government there has been a shake in confidence, in particular because of what happened to Equitable Life. Confidence in the capitalist system is a little more shaken than that, as events across the Atlantic go to show.
	The noble Lord queried whether the savings for pensions have not been invalidated by the minimum income guarantee. I noticed that ultimately he did not oppose the minimum income guarantee or the measures which the Government have undertaken to deal with pensioner poverty. But neither did he note that the pension credit, which comes into effect next year, will ensure that everyone who saves for their retirement benefits from it. The tapers, which discouraged saving, have been removed.
	I have nothing to say about the value of the stock market as an indicator of the economy. The fundamental soundness of the economy has been shown by consumer confidence during the period in which the stock market has been declining.
	I am grateful for everything the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, says about the analysis. He is right that the retail savings industry is not so much under attack—yes, it is under attack from the report, let us be honest. However, it is not in danger from the report because the retail savings industry will always have a number of more complex products in addition to the simplified products. The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, was right to say that the lack of transparency and commission-based selling has meant that the retail savings industry has missed a large part of its potential market. That is what Sandler proposes to overcome. I do not know that I have a definition of mis-selling and I suspect that it would be a semantic exercise.
	The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, properly asked me about the savings gap and about our target. It is not one of the measures we have used and therefore it is not appropriate for me to comment. He also asked about more radical options such as the development of pro bono financial advice. That is exactly what Sandler recommends and what the FSA is taking up with some enthusiasm. I agree with him about the need to restore consumer confidence not so much in the economy as in large parts of the financial services industry. Given the fact that I have run over the available time, I would like to write to the noble Lord about the review of endowment mis-selling and about orphan assets.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I listened with considerable interest to the Statement, particularly as I am a non-executive director of a life assurance company and an investment trust company. Does the Minister agree that openness and transparency are highly desirable, but that the costs of compliance and regulation are escalating enormously? For example, some five years ago in the life assurance company with which I am involved the compliance department consisted of three people. It now consists of 25 people and it is growing. Those costs affect the costs of the financial products in which we hope the public will invest for the purpose of saving. Therefore, will the Minister reassure me that if the recommendations of the report are fully implemented, the costs of implementation will be rigorously studied?
	My second question concerns the training and education of independent financial advisers—which, again, I welcome, as did my noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. Who is pay for this training?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, makes a valid point about the costs of compliance. Sandler addresses this issue in his report. The most important recommendation in his proposals for stakeholder products is that the regulation should be transferred from the seller, which is where all the costs of compliance come in, to the product itself. In other words, a stakeholder savings product, a retail savings product, will itself be subject to regulation at source. Once approval has been given then, comparable to CAT standards, the need for expensive regulation at the point of sale will be reduced. I hope that the company of which the noble Baroness is a non-executive director will recognise and welcome that.
	The noble Baroness is also right about training and education. That is why the FSA is investigating that issue. On the general principle that the work of the Financial Services Authority is paid for by the financial services industry—including the consumer education part of its work, which Sandler recommends should be ring-fenced—the industry will be paying for it. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that ultimately this will be very much to the benefit of the industry.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, has the Minister seen the report—or reports of it in the press over the week-end—produced by Professor Anthea Tinker of the Age Concern Institute of Gerontology at King's College? It is the first time that I have seen in print the assertion that today's young people will be the first generation to be poorer than their parents. That is a very important point. It sums up why the Sandler review and others that are due are so very important. I hope that we will see the other reviews shortly.
	I welcome the Sandler review specifically because we all have to understand that the implications of our ageing society are that we cannot live longer, retire earlier and expect to enjoy a long and prosperous retirement unless we save a very much higher proportion of our earnings over our working lives. What plans do the Government have to make this clear to the population as a whole, and in particular to young people?
	I welcome the proposals for making savings and pensions simpler—it has been very problematic—and more flexible, which is also very important. Given their reluctance to introduce any kind of compulsion, do the Government have plans to ensure that people save more? I welcome the specific questions of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, in regard to those issues and in regard to the huge savings gap. They affect especially the less well off among our population, who will suffer most if we do not get this right.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must confess that I have not seen the report to which the noble Baroness referred. Nor have I seen newspaper reports about it over the weekend. From what the noble Baroness said, I am bound to agree with her conclusions. We all know from our own experience that this may be a generation—whether or not it is the first I do not know—in which children are poorer than their parents.
	As the noble Baroness said, it is necessary to make people understand the limits of what the state can do without them contributing when the ratio between working and non-working life is changing so radically. In the long term, I suppose, the solution will be to change the ratio back by increasing the retirement age or by increasing the possibility for people to work longer if they are healthy and fit to do so. I am not claiming that that is a government policy, but it is something that we all recognise.
	As to the issue of compulsion, there is a substantial level of compulsion already. We have the compulsory national insurance contributions to the basic state pension and the compulsory second state pension for those in work in that they have to contribute to pension schemes up to a certain level. I am not sure how much further one can go in the direction of compulsion, but we should recognise that it already exists.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister enlarge further on the question of independent financial advice? On page 3 of the Statement it states:
	"Advice is too often understood as an adjunct to a sale, and not something valued in its own right".
	I still do not get it. Either we were being naive when we all agreed that there should be something called "independent financial advice"—not realising that we were not told about commissions and so on—or there is something naive in the Statement in that advice must be an adjunct to the sale or else there is no profit in the adviser giving the advice.
	Ten or 15 years ago the advice I received from Lloyd's Bank was probably more reasonable from my point of view than the advice I am allowed to get today. Either Lloyd's Bank will tell me what it is selling or I shall go to someone else who may or may not tell me the basis on which he or she is selling. Are we moving forward—I hope that the answer is in the affirmative; that is why I am asking the question in this slightly barbed tone—to a position where the average punter can believe that there is something called "independent financial advice" which is not intended for any other motivation?
	I am still a sceptic in the sense that this is not perhaps what the structure of the industry can provide. Can my noble friend help me in my scepticism?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is a detailed analysis of this issue in the report. As my noble friend Lord Lea knows, there is considerable dissatisfaction with the polarisation regime, whereby you can offer only the products of a single firm or independent advice across the full range of available products. The Sandler review proposes to "tweak" this system in order to encourage the independent financial sector in a depolarised regime. The FSA is considering that proposal. The changes would make advice from independent financial advisers dependent on a payment agreed between the consumer and the adviser rather than through commission agreed between him and the product provider. The first advantage of that will be greater transparency.
	There will always be a need for independent financial advice. I suspect that that need will grow. We are looking at ways of expanding the advice into something that gives value in its own right. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, we are enthusiastic about the proposals, for example, to talk to citizens advice bureaux about the possibility of pro bono independent financial advice for those who simply cannot afford it or who think they cannot afford it at the present time. The FSA is very keen on moving that forward.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, has the irony struck the Minister that a Government which are addicted to double counting in their public expenditure announcements should have been hoist with their own petard in terms of the double counting of pension contributions? Is it not an index of the dominance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer over his subordinate economic Ministers that none of the latter asked the questions which caused that double counting to be exposed but that it was left to the shadow pensions team in the House of Commons, which had less access to information? Secondly, in the month of the fifth anniversary of the stealth tax, when will sufficient time have passed for the Government to analyse whether their economic justification for change has been justified by long-term returns?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is only fair to pay tribute to and congratulate the honourable Member, Mr. Willetts. He was perspicacious and uncovered an error that had not been revealed before. It has been corrected.
	As to the correction of the anomaly of taxation on pension funds, clearly the benefits vary at different times in the economic cycle. One could call a halt and do a summing up at any stage but I do not believe that would be particularly valuable. In return, I ask when the Conservative Party will say that it would repeal what it calls the stealth tax. Thus far, it has conspicuously failed to do so.

Lord Joffe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the lack of confidence in the life insurance industry is much more the result of the activities of the industry itself over the past decade than anything the Government might have done? Does the Minister agree also that the costs of compliance are relatively insignificant compared with the amounts paid in commission—which boost the prices paid by consumers for the policies that they purchase? I refer in particular to with-profits bond policies.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am reluctant to place all the blame on the life assurance industry. After all, it was invited to indulge in a campaign of mis-selling by the then Conservative Government and the semi-abolition of SERPS in 1998. One cannot blame the industry for taking advantage of the opportunity that was thrust upon it. One can blame the industry for handling that change so badly—as is evidenced by the time it has taken to put matters right. I agree with the noble Lord's second point.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement on this massive report. The noble Lord stated that the review contains a broad-ranging analysis of the impacts of taxation systems on the savings industry and urges that they should be as a simple as possible. The lesson seems to be that the Government accept simplification is absolutely essential. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House agree. Will the Government give some indication of when they intend putting into train simplification of the whole industry? How will that come about? Will the House debate the matter? Also, do the Government accept the recommendation in paragraph 10.166 at page 208? It states:
	"The Review therefore recommends that, in future, governments should avoid introducing new tax-based savings incentives if their aim is to increase aggregate savings levels. The core objective of policy in this area should be simplification".

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to confirm that we all agree that simplification is desirable. The report is directed not only at the Government but the financial services industry. The review is directed at the Government in respect of taxation but our response will be and can only be in the context of consideration of tax policy in preparation for the pre-Budget report and the Budget itself. As to the recommendation that the Government should avoid introducing new taxed-based saving incentives, many already exist—not just pensions but ISAs, National Savings, premium bonds and so on. If one adds up the incentives available to the average two-adult household in terms of tax-based savings, one finds that many people do not pay tax and that very few people do.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 14.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 98:
	Page 9, line 8 at end insert—
	"( ) An accommodation centre shall not provide accommodation for more than 200 persons."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The amendment's purpose is to put on the face of the Bill the requirement that accommodation centres should not house more than 200 asylum seekers at any one time. I was distressed to hear the Minister say openly and blatantly, when speaking to Amendment No. 97, that the number proposed is 750. I had hoped that we had moved some way from that figure but it seems that the Government are set on it.
	On Second Reading my noble friend Lady Carnegy was right to say that the Government are aiming their policy at a moving target—never more so than in the clauses that establish accommodation centres. The Government say that they hope to trial when the centres are built in three years. Although we welcome the concept of accommodation centres, they could be established in a better way. Our objections relate to the centres' size, location and facilities. Amendment No. 98 deals with the first of those. Size is key to fairer, safer and more rapid processing of claims.
	The Immigration Nationality Directorate website states that the Government intend to establish four accommodation centres providing 3,000 places. When speaking to the previous amendment, the Minister said that if the Opposition wants smaller centres, facilities will have to be reconsidered and we cannot have it all ways. There is a mixed message on size. Size does matter and I hope that the Minister will say how much consideration the Government have given to smaller centres as a solution.
	In Committee in another place, the then Minister, Angela Eagle, stated that the Government were examining the use of smaller centres to see whether they would work any better. What is the result of that further thinking? It does not seem to have gone far.
	As the number of claims is 80,000 a year and rising the four centres will not be able to process many applications. The Refugee Council has expressed its concern at the proposed size of the centres. It says that the Government's current proposals would make the centres too large to be effective. The council states that undoubtedly there will be pressures and tensions in a centre that holds as many 750 or anything like that. Smaller centres in urban areas are less likely to be regarded as skewing local life. The smaller the centre, the less institutional it should feel and more likely it is that managers will be able to create an open regime with a reasonably relaxed atmosphere.
	That is vital for single men but also for parents with children. If centres are a sensible size, it is more likely that local authorities will be able to provide all the necessary services, which will make it easier for successful applicants to be integrated into the local community.
	The Churches Commission for Racial Justice notes:
	"While accommodation centres worked well in relation to those needing temporary protection following the Kosovo crisis, the Refugee Council's experience in running such centres suggests that they should not exceed 100 beds. The current proposals envisage groups of 750—often alienated—young men living in one isolated place for extended periods without the right to work . . . Small community-based accommodation would be vastly preferable to large isolated accommodation centres".
	The Immigration Advisory Service believes that the experience of reception centres in other European countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands is that they are more effective if they contain no more than 200 to 300 people. Is the Minister aware that when the chief executive of IAS visited a centre at Dordrecht in the Netherlands on Friday, 28th June, this year, the Dutch officials informed him that, in their experience, putting a large number of people in an accommodation centre was likely to make unmanageable the personal contacts between residents and staff? Can the Minister confirm a similar finding by the IND's immigration research and statistics service officers who visited Belgium, Denmark and Sweden? Can he explain why the Government have not followed that advice?
	The smaller the number in each centre, surely the more likely it is that the centre will be efficient, humane, decent and safe. Local residents would find smaller centres easier to cope with and understand. It would be better for everyone. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: If I may say so, that was an extremely well-argued, coherent and persuasive case. We on these Benches are also in favour of smaller centres. My honourable friend Mr Hughes thought 250 a reasonable number. We shall not split hairs over the difference between 200 and 250. We are prepared to support the amendment.
	What matters is the ability to create a sense of community within a group of people. I have seen in the larger Oxford and Cambridge colleges how people stick in small groups and shut themselves off from the rest. They are frightened of making new acquaintances. The ideal size is somewhere around 220, which just about splits the difference between us.
	On the other hand, I take the point made by the Minister about the need to provide interpretation facilities and that being a countervailing pressure. It is possible by skilful selection of people going into centres to square that circle. I would be prepared to co-operate in attempts to do so. Meanwhile, I look for a very much better atmosphere, a very much happier set of people and very much less disturbance than we had in some of the larger places. If one has large numbers of people with nothing to do, as the Minister and the noble Baroness said, one is setting up a prescription for trouble.
	We hope that the Government will look with sympathy on the amendment. If the Government want to argue about small differences in numbers or small variations for particular circumstances, we should be less ready to listen to such arguments. Meanwhile, we thank the noble Baroness for a well put case and wish the amendment well. We support it.

Lord Monson: The amendment is excellent so far as it goes. But does it go far enough? If the amendment were passed into law there would surely be nothing to prevent the Government erecting two or more asylum centres, each containing 200 people, no more than 50 yards apart.

Lord Chan: I support the amendment on limiting the size of an accommodation centre in order to meet the health needs of asylum seekers. A study of health needs of asylum seekers and refugees by Drs Burnett and Peel in the British Medical Journal in March last year found that 16 per cent of them had significant health problems.
	Health problems identified were physical and psychological. Diseases found among asylum seekers and refugees depend on the country of origin. For example, when I was asked to screen Vietnamese refugees in the mid-1980s one in five was a carrier of the hepatitis B virus and 1 per cent had active tuberculosis. The study reported by Drs Burnett and Peel last year and carried out in Blackburn among 1,085 immigrants found 11 cases of tuberculosis—that is 1 per cent. The purpose of screening for tuberculosis among refugees is to treat the disease effectively. The more people in contact with an infected person, the more difficult the treatment programme is to implement.
	Asylum seekers from tropical countries, in particular in Africa, are likely to be infected with malaria, a disease normally not managed by a primary care doctor in Britain.
	That brings me to my question to the Minister. What arrangements will there be for the health needs of asylum seekers in accommodation centres? Local GPs and their teams could cope with about 200 but a special service, such as used in prisons, may be needed if more people are put in accommodation centres.
	Psychological problems among asylum seekers are usually complex. They may have come from countries where they were subjected to threats, assault, rape and torture. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture is particularly concerned about screening survivors of torture and assisting them with psychological support. Accommodation in a large centre will make that more difficult to achieve. I support a centre of no more than 200.

Lord Hylton: I support the principle of much smaller centres than the Government appear to envisage. We have to anticipate that a large proportion of young males in those centres may easily become bored and aggressive, in particular towards other ethnic groups or unaccompanied women and children who will be very vulnerable. Secondly, it would be much easier to fit smaller centres into urban areas where the full range of services is already available.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I wonder how any noble Lord can come to any reasonably based conclusion that this or that size of centre is ideal. As the Government have explained, they are contemplating a trial for these centres, having hit on the number of about 750. It is extremely unlikely that in the early years of these centres that maximum number will be maintained for anything like 52 weeks of the year. The Government have also made clear that they are listening to a suggestion from the Refugee Council—there may be others—to undertake these matters in a different way. For example, the distinguished Mr Nick Hardwick has suggested that such arrangements could be made around a cluster of hotels or hostels so that all the important services required during the assessment of asylum applications can be provided. That is my first point: it is a trial.
	The figure of 200, or 250 as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is no more than a guess. As a guess, it is no better than the Government's guess of 750. I do not argue that that is a better number for more economical provision of services although that is not unimportant in the spending of public money. None of us wants to be reckless with that. The figure of 200 or 250 is put forward; the Government's preference is 750.
	We all share the ambition that the centres should be as decent and humane as possible, providing a calm and supportive atmosphere in which those making asylum applications can be looked after and feel that they are safe, their applications being considered speedily within the necessary process. However, I should like to argue that there is also some strength in having clusters of people. In passing, I should observe that this may be one of the lessons from Sangatte, although I accept that that is a totally different kettle of fish in every other sense; indeed, I believe that it was designed for about 800 but accommodates around 1,200 or 1,300 people. There is some strength in the suggestion that people and families from the same country with the same background should be accommodated together. In that way they will be able to understand each other's origins and give each other support. There will also be powerful arguments during our debate on the education aspects of the Bill in terms of the treatment of very small children.
	This consideration also applies to mothers and fathers who come to this country with dependent children. Perhaps Members of the Committee could bear in mind for a moment the backgrounds of many of these asylum seekers. They are not used to either the kind of life that we live in western developed countries, or the range of our way of life. Many of these asylum seekers come from countries such as Iraq, and Iran; and, in the past, they came from Ethiopia and the Sudan. Their countries have little or no development, and there are none of the facilities that we take for granted; for example, our huge urban centres. Furthermore, there is nothing even in the most remotest of the rural areas within these islands that compares with remote rural areas in, say, Afghanistan. There is some strength in the argument for having clusters of people from the same areas with the same backgrounds.
	I turn to the services being provided either by the Government, as regards those who are paid to assess the asylum applications, or by the NGOs and other organisations providing advice to asylum seekers. There is a strong argument for those people having detailed in-country knowledge of more than a single sheet of newspaper. I believe that this matter was mentioned yesterday in Committee. We heard of people's experiences regarding civil servants, who are, no doubt, performing an honourable job; but, none the less, getting it wrong because they have no intimate knowledge of the countries from which these applicants have come and are dealing with such applications on the strength of the papers available. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned this problem. Therefore, in-country knowledge is also an important consideration.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to large numbers of people with nothing to do. I absolutely agree with him. However, we are not talking about a prison life in the sense that many of us object to; for example, too few prison officers and not enough educational opportunities for many in our prisons, which can lead to exceptionally dangerous situations. No, that is not the case here. Alongside all the processes through which asylum seekers pass in order to have their claims properly processed—and, if needs be, the lodging of appeals—the idea of these centres is that facilities will be available for applicants to learn language skills, and so on, as well as familiarising themselves with their new surroundings, so as to prepare them for the future should their applications be successful. Therefore, it is part of the beginning of a process through which these people can begin to acclimatise themselves to the country where they wish to live. Again, in that sense, there is strength in having sufficient numbers of asylum seekers in such centres so as to make viable the provision of those services.
	At the end of the day, I do not believe that it is basically an issue of size. It is true to say that the only institution that has attached a great deal of importance to size over the past two centuries is the British Army. The platoon size was based on the number of our Lord's disciples. This is a serious point. The whole of the Army's structure was built upon that foundation. So there is an exceptionally important point in this debate about the number of people who can sensibly be managed in one unit. I do not draw that analogy too far, but I mention it because it is not the size of the establishment; it is the way in which it is managed. It depends upon the skills, the expertise and the training of those who are managing, as well as of the staff who are providing the services that are on offer to those who have been taken into such centres while their asylum applications are being processed.
	It is out of this world for anyone to imagine that these accommodation centres will be some kind of huge shed like the one at Sangatte, where people are simply tipped in and have to find a hole in whatever porta-cabin or tent is available. That is not the case. Such accommodation can be managed in discrete units. However, I believe that it would be sensible to group such people in, if you like, "country families", according to their place of origin. Indeed, within the overall accommodation there could be, say, little villages containing groups of people from similar backgrounds. Such an arrangement would make them feel more comfortable and would also make the process of dealing with their applications that much easier.
	I am not at all convinced that plucking an alternative number out of the air for such centres is sensible. I make a plea to Members of the Committee that they should respect the Government's judgment and accept this proposition on the basis that it is a trial. However, if experience shows that it does not work, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure noble Lords that the Government will be first in the queue to say, "We've got this wrong, and want to try it in a different way".

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord has made a very strong argument for the large-number proposition; indeed, there is no questioning that fact. However, before any of this can happen, local communities will have to accept that they will have a centre, or more than one centre, in their midst. The Government have a preference for introducing such units in the countryside.
	The noble Lord said that there was no issue as regards size. When the public considers the matter, when planning permission is sought, and when local councils discuss the matter and consult upon it, I believe that the size of such centres will become a very great issue. Asylum seekers will not always stay in the accommodation; indeed, they will be coming and going. They will represent a large influx of people into the community. Therefore, it is unrealistic for the noble Lord to speak in that way because none of these developments can take place unless the local community accepts the position and planning permission is gained.
	Although I accept that we need not necessarily have a specific number, the general principle that it should be small seems to be important. I was interested in the point made by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches regarding the health of asylum seekers. That aspect of the matter had not occurred to me, but it is probably quite an important consideration. From the point of view of the people in these centres, there is no questioning the fact that a smaller number of people would be better. I agree with the suggestion that it is desirable for all of them to come from the same area, because they would be more likely to flourish in those circumstances. But if any noble Lord thinks that it is cosier to be in an asylum centre containing 700 people as opposed to one with 200 people, he is misled.

The Earl of Sandwich: I have grave reservations about the whole concept of accommodation centres. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, put the case for the Refugee Council very well, but perhaps not strongly enough. The council would prefer an improved method of dispersal. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, talking about "clusters" and group nationalities, which are both very enticing ideas. However, I submit to the noble Lord that the latter are not really compatible with the concept of enormous accommodation centres. I prefer to talk in terms of reception centres.
	I hope that the one of the pilots, as indicated by the Home Secretary, will be a very much smaller centre. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that the Refugee Council has already held discussions with the Home Secretary in this respect. I also remember what the Minister said earlier in our debates about languages. Does he agree that smaller centres are more compatible with language training?

Baroness Uddin: I had not intended to make a contribution to the debate because the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, more than adequately put forward all of our views on the issue. However, my noble friend Lord Corbett made a number of comments that have led me to consider many more questions than would otherwise have been the case. I ask the Committee's indulgence to speak for a couple of minutes.
	On a number of issues—education, health, housing, community building and so on—the Government always argue that "small is better". They ask for more precise, more comprehensive services to be provided. The proposal for centres housing around 750 people is somewhat contradictory. I should be interested to hear an explanation from the Minister as to how the idea has arisen that 750 is better than any other number. I do not accept the premise put forward by my noble friend Lord Corbett that the number should be based on military principles. Military principles are essentially about brotherhood. Asylum seekers will represent all kinds of regions, nationalities, languages, countries, cultures, and so on. They would not conform to that kind of brotherhood, so the analogy does not apply.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is right about the issue of language training. More importantly, we are assuming that, for example, 750 Iraqis will all apply at the same time and will be housed in one centre. I understand from the briefing provided by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate that large numbers of applications come from Europeans. So Iraqis or Iranians might be somewhat isolated in the centres.
	It cannot for a moment be suggested that a centre will be a utopia for learning English—one of the ambitions is that those housed at a centre will have access to training courses. I am deeply troubled—indeed, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, commented on this point—about the fact that women and children will be housed at a place where large numbers of single men will be able to roam free, walk free, sleep free or whatever. There are deep concerns about child welfare and child protection. I should be interested to know how it is intended to ensure that all these people are checked by the police. They will, of course, be living under a large number of checks of all kinds, but how will that happen? So there are concerns about size. More importantly, we need to be assured about the rationale behind the proposed size of the centres. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I cannot improve on the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I shall not try.
	The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, made reasonable points in his intervention. But to be fair to my noble friend and to the noble Earl, they did adduce case histories in support of the figures for which they were arguing. The late Professor Parkinson, in his term, once did valuable work on the ideal size of human groups, and the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, made an allusion to that in terms of the size of military units. The noble Lord's point about putting nationalities together argues for smaller centres rather than larger ones in order to confer the maximum flexibility.
	My main point is that, if the Minister is minded to resist the amendment, he owes it to the Committee to produce quantitative justification, not just in terms of economics but in terms of social return, for the figures that are the Government's preferred numbers.
	Finally, as a rural resident, after a quarter of a century, like the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, as an inner-city MP, I wholly support the views of my noble friend Lady Carnegy about avoiding a scale in the centres which dominates local communities.

The Countess of Mar: I remind the Committee of my membership of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I support the noble Baroness's amendment wholeheartedly. I come from not very far from Throckmorton, in Worcestershire, and I know the locality very well. I am hugely concerned that there will simply not be the infrastructure there to support accommodation for 750 asylum seekers. We already know that the local residents are extremely upset about the idea. They were upset enough when the foot and mouth funeral pyres were put there. This seems to be another punishment for them.
	That aside, a great number of studies have indicated that crowding people together under stressful conditions creates problems. From my own experience of working with asylum seekers, I can confirm that they are under a huge amount of stress. They are in a strange country. They do not know what will happen to them or what the procedures are. They have not been informed in advance of what they should do or what they should expect. Each nationality has different dietary needs, and that is true even within nationalities.
	Putting people together in smaller groups rather than in larger numbers would work much better. It would probably be better if they were also accommodated on the edge of urban conurbations where they would find people of their own ethnic origins who have already settled in this country and who could be brought in to help and advise them and to show them the way. Putting them in the middle of Worcestershire, for example, where we have a very small ethnic population, would not work. As my noble friend has said, the hospital facilities in Worcestershire are already over-stretched. I know that from my own personal experience. I assume that that would be the case in other rural communities.
	We must look at the whole package. If we are going to put people of different nationalities and different ethnic origins together, we must make sure that they will not strike sparks off each other and create greater problems than they may possibly have encountered in their own countries. I support the amendment.

Lord Greaves: Like other Members of the Committee, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, on putting forward the amendment. It allows us to have an important and basic debate—the first of several on the nature of the proposed accommodation centres.
	The various amendments that we shall discuss deal with issues of size, location and function. It is difficult to separate them neatly into those categories. It might have been better had they been grouped together so that we could discuss all these issues at once.
	Size and location are closely linked. As I understand it, the reason why the proposed sites are in rural areas relates simply to their proposed size. Sites for accommodation centres of about 750 are much easier to find in the countryside—disused airfields, for example—than they are to find in the middle of Manchester or Leeds. That is a simple fact of life. So the two matters are closely and intimately related.
	The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, made a cogent case in favour of the concept of reception or accommodation centres. There is indeed a very good case to be made out for such centres for some people who apply for asylum, for the reasons put forward by the noble Lord; namely, that they offer an opportunity to provide the kind of services and support to asylum seekers which are all too often lacking in the present system of dispersal into the community. Whether it is possible to provide those services on a dispersed basis is a matter of argument. I believe that it would be possible if it were done better. Nevertheless, the basic argument for accommodation centres must be that it will be possible to concentrate services, resources and support for people who are often under great stress and do not know what is going to happen to them. They have reached a traumatic stage in their lives which many of us would find it difficult to understand.
	My noble friend Lord Russell talked about a sense of community. I shall focus on the ethos of the centre, how it works, how the people there relate to the centre and how they live there. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, is wrong. He suggested that we had no evidence and no reason to choose between 200 and 750, or any other figures. That is not a sustainable argument. There is a great deal of research about the nature and management of institutions of different sizes and of all kinds. Apart from that, we all know from experience that institutions of around 200 people are different in kind from institutions of 700 people, which in turn are different in kind from institutions of 5,000 or 10,000 people. That is a fact of life. We know what the size of different institutions means and we can make competent and legitimate decisions about them on that basis. That does not mean that there should not be further research into the subject.
	The noble Lord said that it was not a matter of size, but a matter of the way in which the centres were managed. That is true up to a point. But we are looking for institutions that are humane, that treat people decently, that are pleasant places to live in and that provide the supportive environment that such people need. It is easier to manage an institution of 200 people than an institution of 750. It may be possible to manage an institution of 750 or even 5,000 in such a humane and practically sensible way, but it is more difficult. Better managers and better systems are needed. Many of us are not confident that the Home Office and the people it employs are always as competent and humane in managing things as we would all like. I am not saying that in some cases they do not.
	As a member of Sub-Committee F, I have recently had the privilege, along with other noble Lords, of visiting two contrasting institutions. The Red Cross centre at Sangatte, near Calais is an open institution where people can walk in and out. It is a refuge, not a detention centre. The centre at Harmondsworth is a detention centre that holds people pending their removal from this country. If I were to spend a week in either, I would prefer to spend it in Harmondsworth, for all the fences, barbed wire and goodness knows what other security around it, than at Sangatte, which is a dreadful place. To some extent that supports the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, in his view about management.
	There is no doubt that institutions differ. Institutions such as detention centres, which on the face of it are undesirable places in the sense that in an ideal world we would not have them, can be run humanely if the resources and the right management are put in. Our view was that a good job was being done at Harmondsworth in very difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, we are not legislating for the best; we are legislating for ordinary people in the real world and for what would be most sensible.
	The Minister says that these are trials. We know the likely sites of three of the accommodation centres. We understand that the Government are still looking for a fourth. They will all house around 750 people. If these are genuine trials, why are we trialling four examples of one model instead of four different models? That is fundamental to the case against what the Government are doing. If they were planning one type of trial in an urban locality, a different sort of unit in a rural locality, one big unit and perhaps something else, many of us would still be unhappy about some of the proposals to be trialled but at least we would accept that there was some sense in trialling a range of options.
	The Minister says that it is open to the Government to have smaller units once the first four are under way. It is the first time I have heard that from the Government. Perhaps the Minister is prepared to explain what he means and tell us what progress is being made with the idea of trialling a centre of 200 in an urban area.
	It is an interesting question why we are having accommodation centres for some asylum seekers and a system of dispersal for the other 90 per cent, or whatever it will be, in the next few years—people who will be in the community, supported by NASS in the present way. Some of the ideas being explored by Nick Hardwick should be followed up. In an urban area that already has a community of asylum seekers, an accommodation centre could also act as a centre for services for asylum seekers living out in the community. That is the core and cluster model that various social services and health authorities use for mental health patients. Some people live in the centre because it is more appropriate to them while others living out in the community can use the centre to access legal advice, adjudication and other services specifically designed for the needs of asylum seekers, such as health services, which are difficult for them outside. Has anyone here tried to find a dentist recently? Have you tried to find an NHS dentist recently? Have you tried to find an NHS dentist if you are an asylum seeker recently? It is not easy.
	I hope that the Government will take seriously the idea of providing services for asylum seekers generally within a centre in which some of them might live, on the core and cluster basis. If the Government are genuine about trialling different options, the might like to consider that.
	My final point is not directly related to size, except in the sense that bigger institutions may cause a problem in the community. Some accommodation centres will cause great difficulty locally simply because they are, in the best sense of the word, alien institutions in the area. I do not use the word "alien" in any pejorative sense. A demand will arise to stop people from the centre going into local pubs, wandering across local fields or hanging around in villages. The same might happen in urban areas if the centre is too big. There will be demands for stricter curfews than are proposed, not just night-time curfews. There will be demands for people to be kept inside the centre—where they belong, as some will see it—and not allowed to wander around the countryside in a way that local people worry about, even without making a nuisance of themselves.
	As with people dispersed in the community, there will also be a tendency for people living in asylum seeker accommodation centres to find a way of disappearing towards the end of their presence there if they believe that their application is likely to be turned down in order to avoid being picked up the morning after their final appeal is refused. It is clear that some people will do that, because that is what some people do at the moment. They move out of their NASS accommodation at the appropriate time so that they cannot be found when the removal squads employed by the Home Office turn up to find them. Subsequently they live in the community as illegal immigrants, with the unknown number—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of other illegal immigrants. That will happen, and it will increase the pressure for greater security.
	What guarantee does the Bill give that the accommodation centres will not be turned effectively into detention centres that do not allow people to leave? Where is that guarantee? The Government can say that that is not their intention, but where in the legislation is a guarantee that accommodation centres will not eventually or overnight become detention centres?

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I am sorry to inject a slightly discordant note into the happy unanimity that 200, 250 or 220 is automatically better than 750. When we started this debate I had great sympathy for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Subsequently, I have listened to the speeches with increasing scepticism. When I try to measure my own experience of schools, universities and military establishments, it seems to me by no means a foregone conclusion that 200 or 250 is better than the sort of size proposed by the Government.
	All the arguments about people wandering round fields or filling up the pubs could equally be used against a barracks or against students at universities and schools. There are very good schools, such as Eton, that have well over 1,000 pupils. There are also good universities with large numbers of students. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I both belong to a college which I believe now has 14,000 or 15,000 students. I am worried about this because I think that size could be a distraction from rather more crucial issues—such as appropriate resources for these accommodation centres, if we are to have them, and good management. The factors that make a good comprehensive school good are appropriate resources and good management.
	I still have an open mind on the issue, and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: In some ways I sympathise with the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Some large institutions are incredibly effective. As we know, however, the bigger the institution—and let us speak about prisons for a start—the more difficult it is to cater sensitively and responsively to those accommodated there. That is true also of universities and schools. This is about the extent to which one is able to respond to the numbers; the greater the number, the more difficult it is to respond appropriately.
	I raise the issue—as I did at Second Reading—because, like others, I am concerned about the position of women and children. I am worried about safeguarding women from domestic violence and from random sexual and non-sexual violence within accommodation centres. I also have concerns about the protection of children.
	Recently, at the Government's instigation, the Home Office began consultation with lawyers and women's groups on gender guidelines for initial decision making. We are very pleased that this is now taking place. The purpose of the consultation is to facilitate separate claims from women. We are worried that accommodation centres will throw up barriers to that process. How will a separate claim be encouraged or facilitated without rendering the woman a target for male relatives who may object to her claim, particularly if it based on domestic or sexual violence? How will confidentiality be maintained for women reporting sexual abuse in their country of origin but fearing rejection by male relatives, partners or a community that may be rather unwilling for that to be publicly expressed?
	We raise the issue because it would be much easier to deal sensitively with these problems if the facilities had fewer people. As we know, prisons with fewer inmates are better. Big schools can work, but they work better with smaller classes. We need to resource the facilities and enable them to work in a sensitive way. Institutions, unless they are resource rich, usually work better with smaller numbers. Unless they are resource rich, large universities, particularly the new ones, find it more difficult to function well with huge numbers of students. My question for the Minister is just how resource rich will the accommodation centres be? We suspect that they will not be rich at all.
	Will there be separate family-only units? I see the Minister nodding, and I am reassured. However, I think that we all want reassurance on that point. Will there be the opportunity for self-catering? That may not seem a terribly important point, but the facility to cook for one's family and make one's own family arrangements is very important to people from some other countries. The opportunity to access one's own food supply also can be very important in facilitating family security.
	Will there be monitoring of the mental and physical health consequences of living in the centres? How will we address the protection issues affecting women and children? How will we ensure that they are able to access the right type of healthcare and legal advice? I simply want the Minister's assurance that we can address these issues when the numbers are as great as 700. We have usually discovered that, in such institutions, the smaller the number, the more effective it is.

Earl Russell: I should like, if I may, to respond very briefly to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford about the college to which we both belong. It is constructed, if I may say so, on a principle somewhat akin to that of the European Union. That is a real unit, and I speak as a good European. However, at the different sites of our college, there is very much more a principle of what has been described as "cluster". Not one of these sites is anything like the size that the right reverend Prelate quoted. At its collective size, it is all right. However, I think it works very much better because it is divided into those smaller units.

Lord Filkin: I genuinely thank all who have contributed to this important debate, which—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, signalled—is the first of an interconnected set of debates. I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I spend a few minutes setting out the broader context before replying in detail to the many points that have been raised.
	We spoke at Second Reading about the reality of the challenge facing Britain, both government and society, in this regard. The Committee does not need reminding that we have seen a threefold increase in the number of asylum claimants since 1996, producing an enormous challenge at a fairly obvious level. Yet, at the end of the processes of initial assessment and/or legal claims, about 10 per cent are accepted and found to be refugees under the 1951 convention. A further 15 or 16 per cent are granted exceptional leave to remain in Britain because it is not realistic to return them to their countries. These are the figures for 2001. In 2001, 74 per cent were found not to have a valid claim for refuge under the 1951 convention.

Earl Russell: I presume that the Minister is quoting only figures for initial decision. What are the figures when the appeal results are taken into consideration?

Lord Filkin: No; I am quoting the figures for cases brought to a conclusion in 2001. It is the totality.

Lord Avebury: Surely the Minister cannot be quoting figures for 2001. Most of the appeals lodged in 2001 would not have been heard by the end of the calendar year; they would still be pending.

Lord Filkin: I was talking about cases brought to a conclusion in 2001. By saying this initially, I am signalling that, as we acknowledged at Second Reading, we have to find a better way of discovering as quickly as we can those with a genuine case for refuge in this society. All Committee Members want to give genuine refuge. At the same time, however, we want to identify those who, for understandable reasons, are essentially economic migrants. That is the challenge that we face and the context within which the discussion about accommodation centres is relevant.
	Why should we have accommodation centres? The Government propose to set up trials of accommodation centres to determine whether they constitute a better way to provide support for people who have lodged an asylum claim and who state that they are destitute. They are saying that they wish to be supported by the state while their asylum claim is considered. As soon as their asylum claim is accepted, they should be integrated into society. They have no further place in accommodation centres. The question that society faces concerns what is the best way to provide the support that those people undoubtedly need while at the same time seeking to accelerate the process of considering asylum claims in a way that is fair and meets people's legal rights. That is the central challenge that accommodation centres seek to address. We seek to determine whether they could be a better way to address the problem than the system we have had hitherto; namely, dispersal. We seek to determine whether they will provide speedier consideration of claims, better contact between relevant persons, less of a burden on pressed local services and whether they will work better than the system of dispersal.
	At this stage no one on the Government Benches is being absolutely dogmatic and saying that it is axiomatic that all of those benefits must self-evidently be produced. We are saying that we want to provide the centres and then to evaluate how they work to see whether they fulfil our hopes and intentions. We want to assess whether accommodation centres provide a more supportive environment for asylum seekers. That will be one of the criteria that we shall consider in the evaluation.
	As regards the four centres with a capacity of 750 places in each, producing approximately 3,000 places for which we have funding in the trial period, we have indicated—the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was right to mention this—that we shall consider whether one of the sites could be smaller during the trial phase. The Refugee Council has indicated that it wishes to hold discussions on that matter. The Home Secretary has said that he would be pleased for officials to hold such discussions. I believe that they will start next week. If they result in a positive outcome which is acceptable to the Government, we shall not for one second wish to be doctrinal or dogmatic in that regard and shall wish to move forward in terms of considering whether yet a further variant may be possible.
	However, setting on the face of the Bill a limit on the numbers who could reside in accommodation centres, as has been suggested, would lock in the pilots and any development of centres in the future. We consider that that would be completely wrong in principle. If that proposal were accepted and we discovered that a variety of sizes of centre worked better in different circumstances, the Bill would state that any centre with more than 200 places would be out of the question. However, I am certain that the amendment is a probing one rather than wishing to place a precise provision on the face of the Bill.
	There is a need to think seriously about alternative ways of providing support which may differ slightly, or perhaps significantly, from the dispersal arrangements. We must remember that many of the people who make claims for asylum, whether or not they are eventually found to have a valid claim under the 1951 convention, will frequently have travelled long distances, be in a state of some turmoil and will have great hopes of establishing themselves in Britain. However, they will not necessarily feel comfortable or secure. Many of them will have arrived in the UK without shelter or security or the means to feed themselves or their families. They may also feel afraid. They may be traumatised and some will have health needs. They look to the Government to deal with their claim for asylum fairly and efficiently and to provide them with the support that they have asked for. If they do not want support, their asylum claim can still be considered but they do not need to follow either the dispersal route or that of accommodation centres. Many of these people will have considerable needs. Because we are a civilised society we have to consider how best we can meet those needs while assessing claims efficiently and considering the impact on local services.
	I turn to the central issue. There is no mysticism as regards the figure of 750; one would be foolish to claim that there was. However, there clearly is an issue as regards the size of a centre and the scale of facilities that can be provided approximate to it and within it. That is the nub of the issue. While people are waiting to have their claim for asylum determined, the Government believe that they should be provided with as much support as possible at the site where they are living. We are not talking simply of providing accommodation but rather of an integrated package of support and services which we believe are in their interests and in the interests of efficient processing. For example, asylum seekers will have self-catering facilities. There is good evidence that self-catering facilities preserve traditional family structures and traditional family roles and allow people to choose the cuisine and form of cooking that they prefer. An on-site shop will be provided with prices set at normal supermarket rates. However, clearly, people will be free to shop elsewhere if they prefer. Family accommodation will be in self-contained units with sleeping, residential and cooking facilities.
	We shall discuss children's education later but it is relevant to mention it now. It will mirror that provided in schools and will be based on the national curriculum. However, it will be tailored to the needs of the children in the centres. Some differences in their education as opposed to that of children who are not seeking asylum will be evident given the former's particular needs both in terms of potential trauma and the difficulties of learning a new language. On-site provision will allow more targeted support to be given. It will include education for under-15s and some provision for 16 to 18 year-olds.

Lord Judd: I have listened with great interest to my noble friend's comments and appreciate his genuine commitment to the well-being of the people who will live in the centres. However, does he not accept that in the realm of education there is one specific issue that needs to be addressed? If we accept that a significant number of the children will ultimately remain in this country, is it not the case that participation in nursery education in the general community is one of the best investments imaginable in terms of successful subsequent integration? Therefore, would it not be unfortunate for children who will remain in this country to be given separate education at the nursery stage which might make subsequent integration more difficult rather than easier?

Baroness Uddin: I refer to self-catering facilities and to the availability of food. Do the Government have a sum in mind per child or per adult per day to buy food as opposed to eating food that may be available at the accommodation centre?

Lord Filkin: I shall seek to respond to those points before I complete my remarks.
	I return to my remarks on our proposals in terms of the facilities at accommodation centres. We have concluded that we should provide healthcare at least at the primary level within accommodation centres; that is, facilities similar to those at a GP's surgery. Dental care will also be provided. However, we shall not dogmatically draw the line at primary care. Given the circumstances of many of the people in accommodation centres there may be a case for providing some secondary mental healthcare and support facilities. If we find that that is the case, we will provide it because it seems to us right to do so.
	There will also be purposeful activity. In centres, children will be at school but we also think that adult education should be provided—or at least offered, because one cannot compel people to take it up. One would expect English language, IT, some other skills training, and, possibly, basic literacy and numeracy, to be provided. There will also be sporting facilities on site, including football pitches and other facilities, the details of which are yet to be finalised.
	Volunteering will be encouraged by accommodation centre residents within their own community and, I hope, in the wider community within which they sit; it is right and proper that people are given those opportunities if possible.
	There will be facilities for religious observation. There will be Muslim prayer facilities, a Christian chapel, a multi-faith room and a member of staff who is designated with a particular responsibility for religious observation.
	Transportation facilities will be available when people need to move to particular functions. However, in view of what I said about adjudication, one hopes that many of the transportation needs will be met within the centre itself because people will be able to walk to the facilities.
	Interpretation facilities will be provided in centres. Again, the issue of size is relevant: it will be simpler to provide a range of good interpretation facilities in a decently sized centre rather than in a smaller centre. There will be access to legal advice, although we will discuss that later.
	We mentioned in relation to an earlier amendment that there would be adjudicators and appeal hearing rooms. Most of the case-work would be done on site. We think that that is right. The tone of our discussion on that amendment suggested that the Committee also thought that that was right. That is for the very good reasons that were advanced by Opposition Members at Second Reading and at earlier stages of the Bill's scrutiny. As well as caseworkers, people will be able to have briefing, advice and information that is more targeted to their needs.
	The challenge, therefore, is clear. If we think, as we do, that those facilities are right and proper and could potentially provide better support, better services and more rapid processing than we have previously been able to achieve, they could provide better services, support and accommodation than exists anywhere else in Europe. We therefore think that it is right to trial such centres with those services and to establish whether or not our hopes prove to be true. That is why, as Members of the Committee may be able to sense, I am resistant to putting a figure such as 200 in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, implied that economic or social reasons lay behind the Government's consideration of the figure of around 750. I am not being arithmetic in referring to that figure; one is talking about a figure that is substantially larger than 200.
	It is pretty obvious, in terms of the economics involved, that one could not provide that range of facilities in a centre of about 200 people. It is not remotely conceivable that one could do so. One would have to provide such services, if one wanted them, from within the local community and from local services. That is what we have, to some extent, already tried through the dispersal arrangements. In some places in Britain, there are already 200 asylum claimants, and many more are living in the sort of concentrations that we are discussing in relation to the four pilots. They get their support services from the local community. Those arrangements are not disastrous, but they are not without their problems either. We therefore have a benchmark for comparison. That is what is going on in Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds and many other major urban centres. The challenge is whether we can do better than that in terms of support and the speed of processing. That is why we are strongly committed to making the pilot work and to evaluating it objectively to establish whether it does work.
	It would help if at some stage we gave Members of the Committee an indication of the sort of accommodation centres that we are considering. Perhaps we should do so informally, because there is no formal process for doing so. I should be happy to share plans with any Member of the Committee who is interested. I came to this debate thinking that an accommodation centre meant a big building. Clearly, one is talking about not even a large Oxford or Cambridge college but a range of buildings that form, in effect, a village complex. Some of those buildings would be family units and others would be for single men—there would be physical separation—and administration centres, let alone the adjudication centres that we have already discussed. If it would be of interest, I will share with Members of the Committee details that give a better feel of what those places might look like, although one can never get a total picture from architects' plans.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about Home Office research. The short answer is that there was an attempt by Home Office officials to get alongside the experience regarding accommodation centres in other European countries but it was more of a quick fact-finding exercise than research. We were trying to see what they had done in terms of evaluation. Very little had been done, which was a pity. Having said that, the exercise was not without its uses and we learnt something. We found that there were many different sizes of such centres and many different functions were covered by the term "accommodation centre". However, there was nothing that afforded us a scientific evaluation. I have already discussed the central issue: whether one is able to provide better support by having more support services on site rather than leaving that to the happenstance of what can or cannot be provided by the community.
	I have mentioned that we are already considering the Refugee Council proposal. I am reminded that we are due to meet next week on Monday the 15th. I have signalled that we are pleased to look positively at those proposals to establish whether they can be made to work. The individual houses—we have already discussed them in terms of what will take place in accommodation centres—have the potential to create a sense of a smaller community within the larger community of the accommodation centre.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, rightly reminded us that all of these proposals are subject to planning permission; I agree with her. Planning permission has to be obtained before any such facilities can be built.
	The noble Lord, Lord Chan, discussed healthcare screening. In a sense, he is right. There could well be some specialist health needs. That is why we believe that effectively having a GP premises on site, which would allow specialisms to develop—it would be supported, no doubt, by relevant local hospitals—involves a better healthcare service than that under which people are scattered across the community. However, that is to be proven through evaluation rather than assertion.
	The key point is to emphasise the range of services that will be provided. I was deeply grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for injecting a questioning tone. This is not simply a question of size; it is also a question of resources and management and of how the whole constellation of facilities can be brought together to provide better support while at the same time producing more rapid but fair processing of claims for asylum.
	We have made it clear that we intend to provide at least trial accommodation centres in non-urban areas; we have discussed that. A question-mark remains about the Refugee Council arrangement. As we shall discuss later, that is partly because 45,000 people are already accommodated in urban areas through NASS support. We are concerned in this regard with accommodating 3,000 people in the rest of Britain in rural areas. We want to establish whether a different model from that which we have already undertaken works better.
	We want viable communities to develop within the centres and we very much want viable communities to develop between the centres and the surrounding area. I understand why and respect the fact that people are currently upset about this change to their life through the planning applications. That is normal; it is human nature.
	But I also hope—I do not hope; I am confident—that if planning permission were granted for some or all of the centres, and if they were built and managed well, the decency and support that we have seen offered by people in many urban areas to asylum claimants and refugees in their midst would be offered to those people by local communities in rural areas. I am confident that that is what we shall see when people have a chance to experience what we are trying to achieve. Of course, none of that prejudges whether planning permission will be granted for the centres. That is a separate matter.
	There are a number of other points which I should seek to answer. My noble friend Lady Kennedy raised the question of women being at risk from violence. She is right. The issue of both relative violence and wider sexual violence is important. I believe it is an open question as to whether women who are exposed to such threats will be more or less at risk in an accommodation centre. My own view is that it is more likely that they would be protected if they had other people around them than if they were scattered around dispersed units and lost in the local community. But that is to be proven, and my noble friend is right to challenge the Government to demonstrate that women will be properly supported, cared for and protected from abuse in that way.
	My noble friend Lord Judd raised the issue of nursery education. He is absolutely right. Good nursery education is extremely important. The point is that, as a result of faster processing in accommodation centres, as soon as people are granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, they will move out into the community. So they should, and it is the responsibility of central and local government to support them in their integration. Therefore, I believe that children will move into nursery education more rapidly than would otherwise be the case.
	The other point that I should mark is that the process of moving to an accommodation centre from an induction centre and, eventually, into settlement in the community could be quicker—in process terms rather than in time—than under the current arrangement. If a person is to be dispersed, under the current process he will go initially to an induction centre. He will then often be placed in emergency accommodation while dispersed accommodation is found. Then, if he is accepted as a refugee, he will find a permanent home. Therefore, three moves are involved after time has been spent in an induction centre. That is not ideal or desirable. The intention is that a person should move straight from an induction centre to an accommodation centre; he should have his claim determined rapidly; and, if it is successful, within two months or less he should be in the community and resettled in a permanent home and, it is hoped, welcomed by the wider society.
	For the reasons that I have given, we believe that this trial should proceed and that it should not be constrained on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to evaluate it openly and fairly in the way that we have been challenged to do by this debate.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: In relation to the services and, in particular, the skills that will be required to manage the centres, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Government feel confident that the level of skill required for the management, operation and provision of the services is available and whether people can be recruited successfully to run the centres in the way that he envisages them running.

Lord Filkin: The gung-ho answer would be: of course. But the sensible answer is: we must test that through a procurement process. With an open mind as to how they might be supplied, we must test whether, through a proper process of procurement, adequate skills are available. However, I do not start from a position of questioning why that should not be possible. In such a centre one would need to harness a wide range of different skills from a wide range of disciplines, such as education, healthcare, housing management and so on. But that is the challenge that we must meet, and we see no reason in principle why it should not be met.

Baroness Uddin: Before my noble friend sits down, will he kindly ensure that, if at present he is unable to respond to the question that I asked, he will write to me with the answer?

Lord Filkin: I have been reminded of having overlooked my noble friend's question. We have yet to determine the precise amount of cash support that will be made available to families in accommodation centres. However, it will be substantially more than pocket money and in the region of full NASS subsistence support. We need to work through exactly what the allowance will be, taking account of what is provided at nil cost in accommodation centres and what must be purchased by families in order to cater and care for their own needs, particularly their feeding and cooking needs.

Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I may put a question to him which I believe he failed to answer in his response. It was a question posed by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, about the impact on community relations in rural areas, in particular, of the influx of a large number of people who are not normally resident there. Has any research been undertaken about the effect that such an influx would have? If no research exists, perhaps I may refer the Minister to a report and study undertaken by the Commission for Racial Equality about such an impact on the West Country. The title of the report demonstrates precisely the conclusion that the commission reached. It is, Send Them Back to Birmingham.

Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for reminding me, and I regret that I did not respond immediately to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I shall certainly take note of that book and draw it to the attention of officials in the department to see whether it assists us in our thinking.
	Apart from what we learn from the CRE report, the issue of the impact on community relations is, in a sense, difficult to grip. But we should not pretend that there has not already been an impact on community relations over the past 10 years. By that I mean that at least 750 people have been moved into existing communities in Britain in geographical areas similar to those which we are discussing. Large concentrations of NASS accommodation and support have been provided in some of our major cities in ways that have often challenged local communities, and, in many cases, those communities have risen to the challenge.
	It is not possible to prove the case one way or the other. When decisions are finally taken after whatever fair process, a commitment is required from all parties to make the situation work. I believe that that commitment will involve government, local authorities, the police force, health authorities, social services, civic society and the Churches. Collectively people need to say, "This is a challenge faced by all society. We must seek to make these things work rather than try to prove that they cannot work". I am confident that that is how civic society will respond.

Lord Greaves: I asked a question, which I intended should be serious, on a matter which I believe the Government must face. First, in the future what will stop the centres being turned into detention centres due to local political pressure?
	Secondly, the Minister referred to some statistics for, I believe, 2001 concerning the number of people who, in different ways, were allowed to stay in this country. Those statistics differ considerably from those put forward by expert organisations in the field. I believe that this is an opportunity to get to the bottom of those statistics, which, at the least, are opaque and somewhat obscure.
	For example, I have here a booklet produced a couple of weeks ago called Refugee Week. The booklet, which states on the back that it is partly funded by the Home Office, says that the Refugee Council estimates that at least 51 per cent of asylum seekers were successful in 2001. I believe that "successful" is defined as being allowed to stay at some stage in the process. A briefing from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants states:
	"The figure for 2001 shows that 26 per cent were granted exceptional leave or refugee status. Once allowed appeals are taken into account, the figure is expected to show around 50 per cent of applicants are eventually granted protective status".
	A briefing from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which claims to obtain its information from the House of Commons Hansard of 9th May 2002 and Home Office news release 127/2002 of 14th May, states:
	"The Home Office does not issue any statistics on the overall success rate of asylum claims, i.e. taking account of successful appeals and other legal challenges".
	That is the nub of the problem. No one knows the final figures. Statistics are issued for initial decisions and various stages of appeals, but not comprehensive statistics. Those involved with asylum seekers know that some people are mysteriously granted leave to remain between stages. Such people do not appear to be counted in any of the statistics. The briefing continues:
	"When the (anecdotally common) concession of appeals by the Home Office . . . and successful applications for judicial review in the courts are taken into account, the overall success rate will eventually be in excess of 50 per cent".
	The figures provided by expert organisations in the field are considerably greater than those provided by the Government. It seems to me that the Government now have an opportunity, while the Bill passes through this place, to state the full figures which they believe are the facts. Those figures can then be challenged by such organisations and anyone else so that we can get to the bottom of the issue once and for all.

Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his intervention. He first asked what guarantee there is in the Bill that accommodation centres will not be detention centres. We have no intention of operating them as such. We have ensured under Clause 27 that conditions are reasonable and do not amount to de facto detention. Accommodation centres are clearly distinct from immigration removal centres, which are regulated under Part VIII of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The JCHR clearly also draws the attention of the Government to the obligation under the ECHR that no de facto detention is possible through accommodation centres. We are fully aware of that and are clearly committed to accommodation centres not becoming detention centres by a process of allusion or transition.
	As regards statistics, perhaps the most straightforward way to deal with the point is for me to make a statement on our next day in Committee and/or to provide a submission to the Library, which will be accessible to all Members. I do not pretend that that will answer every question about asylum volumes. However, we shall try to give a fair picture in a short and succinct form of some of the key data.

Earl Russell: I warmly thank the Minister for the care, thoughtfulness and concern he gave to the questions raised. It was a truly impressive performance. I was pleased to hear his comments on family units and on self-catering. However, the significance of the concession on self-catering, which is potentially considerable, would be somewhat weakened by the difficulty of buying tropical produce in rural Worcestershire. That raises the question of where the centres should be located.
	Like my noble friend Lord Greaves, I was somewhat distressed by the appearance, which was most clear in the exchange between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, of the Minister assuming that the vast majority of asylum seekers do not have genuine claims and will not be successful. The quotation from the Home Office news release, referred to by my noble friend Lord Greaves, which states that the Home Office keeps no figures taking account of appeal results, is fairly conclusive.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his undertaking to give further information. In order that he should understand where we on this side of the Committee are coming from as regards the proportion of refugees who are genuine—I do not intend to raise that question now but it must be debated before the Bill is passed—perhaps I may ask him to read before we return to the issue two publications by Alastair McKenzie of Asylum Aid, entitled, No Reason at All, and Still no Reason at All. The quotation is taken from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, who stated that reasons which are unintelligible amount to no reason at all. When the Minister has read those two publications he may understand a little better why we on these Benches believe that it is far from clear that the majority of asylum seekers do not have a genuine claim. We approach the whole question with that assumption.
	The most discouraging aspect of the debate on accommodation centres—indeed, removal centres as they are described at some point—is the assumption that they are for people who will not remain here. That deeply saddens us.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate which sets the scene for our discussions on what asylum seekers can expect to be their lives, first in the centres which the Government are trialling but certainly, if those trials are successful, in accommodation centres which will be applied more generally in years to come. It is right that noble Lords pay such care and attention to the details of the debate.
	I shall turn last but not least to the two noble Lords who disagreed with me: the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and the Minister. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for keeping an open mind on this matter. I appreciate the way in which he approached the debate and his concern that in talking about numbers we should not be distracted from the important questions of resources and management. Indeed, those two issues have underpinned the whole way in which I intended to approach the debate.
	I note that, like the Refugee Council, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, considers my amendment second best. I appreciate that others would prefer to see no accommodation centres. However, we on these Benches have made clear that as a matter of principle and practice we believe that they could be a way forward if the trials prove successful.
	I shall not refer in detail to the contributions of each and every noble Lord. That has been covered well by the Minister. Indeed, some points made were so important in detail that it would be unwise for me to try to summarise them briefly at this stage. However, some vital points were made as regards the needs of those who will be in the centres. I took careful note of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chan. In a matter as important as TB screening, one has to take account of health needs which may not be commonly seen by local GPs or hospitals. Sensitive expertise is needed in dealing with health screening. I listened carefully to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, because of her wide experience both within and outwith this Chamber in learning about the needs of families, mothers and children, who could well be at risk in such environments.
	The Minister tried to respond well to the attacks made on government policy. However, I refer him to the statement made by my noble friend Lord Brooke, who encapsulated the whole problem. He challenged the Government to come up with quantitative evidence with regard to the economic and social advantages of the model the Government are determined to have in this trial. Despite all the helpful information given by the Government, they have shown that they do not have that quantitative evidence to go ahead with the experiment at a size of 750. I have been reminded by the Refugee Council in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, that its concern about the size of centres is based on experience of running reception centres for asylum seekers in recent years. Such experience shows that smaller, community-based centres are much more likely to be successful. I have to reflect upon the experience of those who have already done, as opposed to those of us in politics who are trying to create for the future.
	The whole point of a trial is that we must get it right. We are talking of the future of human beings—not of trying to tick a box stating that we are successful in a management scheme—and of people who have been harassed from shore to shore, who come here with hope for a future. We must get the plans right for them and right for this country. They deserve nothing less.
	I listened carefully to what the Minister said. This matter is too important for me to plough ahead and test the opinion of the Chamber tonight. I am grateful to the Minister for telling us that next week he is to meet with the Refugee Council with the thought of looking at different models. My disappointment is that I do not want to see those models waiting until 2003–04. I want to see them in position now alongside these larger centres.
	So, yes, the Minister has given us much food for thought, but I am greedy on behalf of people whom we want to see in this country. Although I shall in a moment beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I am sure that on another occasion on Report I shall bring the matter back in order to take it further.
	I ought at this stage to say to Members of the Committee that the amendment ranged more widely than I had anticipated or intended. Noble Lords have very properly in the course of the debate covered the issues that I intended to raise by my next amendment. Amendment No. 99 deals with the matter of facilities which might be provided. Therefore, I think that it would be proper for me not to move that amendment when it is called so that we can continue on to Amendment No. 100. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 100:
	Page 9, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) Prior to providing an accommodation centre, the Secretary of State shall consult with the relevant local authorities, health authorities and police authorities."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Amendment No. 100 is slightly different. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, earlier took me to task and asked why we had not grouped these amendments together. There was a method in my—not quite, I hope—madness. On this occasion I am looking at the planning process. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, raised a nugget of this in our last debate.
	Amendment No. 100 is a probing amendment. It asks the Minister to clarify the rules that will govern the siting of the new accommodation centres, in particular, the guidelines for the construction of new centres in rural areas where public services are already overstretched.
	I note that in a Written Answer in another place the Minister, Beverley Hughes, stated:
	"We expect the first trial accommodation to open during 2003".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/02; col. WA 736.]
	Will the passage of the Planning Reform Bill, which is widely expected in your Lordships' House next Session, have any impact upon the rules to be followed? One assumes that the Government must have a good idea of the impact of that Bill because it has become clear from reports in the press and debates in the Chamber that the Government intend to leap straight from the Green Paper—recently debated in this Chamber—into legislation.
	Therefore, this is a matter where policy, one assumes, is fairly well advanced. It is not just a matter of concern as to which sites will be chosen but what kind of buildings will be erected on the site. The Minister has adduced some evidence as to wanting some flexibility about how those sites might be planned. I welcome his offer of giving noble Lords some sight of the Government's ideas on the matter.
	At the moment the Government propose to use Crown land. One supposes that it is easy for them to get at. Can the Minister explain the ramifications of the processes of planning circular 18/84 which allows both fast and slower track processes for the local authority? The Minister in another place stated:
	"We are considering using the slower track rather than fast. We want as much support and engagement for the matter as we can muster among local authorities and those involved in areas where accommodation centres are being sought".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 7/5/02; col. 77.]
	That reassurance is undermined by the Government's publicly stated intent to appeal if their first applications for centres are turned down. That makes it look as though they are determined to go ahead with the sites already identified, whatever local views may be.
	I have been invited to visit one of the potential sites in Bicester this summer. My honourable friend Mr Baldry has arranged the visit so that I can meet some of the local people and the organisations to learn their views.
	Last week I received a letter from the Bicester Action Group. It acts on behalf of the people of Bicester and the surrounding villages, including Piddington, Arncott, Ambroseden and Blackthorn, which are the four villages most affected. Is the Minister aware that it expresses its dismay at the Government's proposals for an accommodation centre at the MoD site in Bicester? It says that it is difficult to see how a new mini-township of 750 people plus staff could possibly be unobtrusive. It points out that the population of the two closest villages—Piddington and Arncott—is less than the total which the accommodation centre is likely to accommodate.
	Those villages have only three shops and two public houses between them. Piddington does not have a shop or a Post Office and only one bus to Oxford each day. Bicester does not have the facilities for its local inhabitants. It has no cinema or recreational opportunities. It cannot offer proper facilities for the needs of a large number of residents in the accommodation centre. The Bicester Action Group states that it is at a loss to understand why the Government have chosen to ignore the advice of the relevant refugee support groups, which are highly critical of these large centres in rural areas. So am I. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: I support my noble friend on the amendment. This is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill. Therefore, perhaps I should disclose that many years ago while I was a Home Office Minister I was, for four-and-a-half years, responsible for immigration and asylum.
	There were scarcely any asylum seekers then, but we had thousands of immigrants who were entitled to come here from the Commonwealth. Their numbers and the problems they created were so great—housing, accommodation, the education of their children and one thing and another—that we had to do something about the situation. So we persuaded Parliament to pass the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. That reduced the problems; it did not solve them.
	Now we have a similar problem on a similar scale. I feel sorry for the Government in having to deal with it. I think that we are right to give the Government all the support they need in dealing effectively with the problem.
	Having used those general words I turn to Amendment No. 101, which has just been moved by my noble friend. I support it. But of course it overlaps with Amendment No. 126, which is grouped with it, and which is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin.

Earl Russell: If the noble Lord will forgive me, we are on Amendment No. 100. Amendment No. 101 comes next.

Lord Renton: I apologise to Members of the Committee. I thought that I heard that it was not going to be moved.

A noble Lord: No, that was Amendment No. 99.

Lord Renton: Having heard that, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 100, which I very much wished to speak to. The preliminary remarks that I have made apply just as much, perhaps even more, to Amendment No. 100. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
	Amendment No. 100 states that,
	"the Secretary of State shall consult with the relevant local authorities."
	I hope that that will include local parish councils. They represent the residents of the area where these accommodation centres will exist. If they are not consulted there will be a feeling that local democracy is not working. That is an important factor to bear in mind. Therefore, that is all that I need say for the moment.

Earl Russell: I am no believer in gilding of lilies and I am mindful of the Committee's time, so I shall say only that we, on these Benches, support the amendment.

Lord Hylton: I also support the amendment. Consultation on the setting up of the accommodation centres must clearly be an important part of the whole process in order for them to work satisfactorily.
	However, I would go beyond that. When we discussed Amendment No. 98, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that a successful application would mean that the person or family would immediately move out of the centre to somewhere else. I want the Government to consult on where that "somewhere else" will be. In the case of rural accommodation centres, it will almost certainly be an urban area, so the move may be over a considerable distance. That will require forethought. I hope that the Government will accept at least the spirit of the amendment.

Lord Chan: I, too, support the amendment. It is important that the relevant authorities are consulted. Perhaps I may cite the experience of Liverpool, as I live just south of the river there. We regularly see asylum seekers. There has not been proper consultation, especially about asylum seekers accommodated by private landlords. As a result, unnecessary trauma and rejection of asylum seekers by local people has been caused.
	The other important issue is that of children and families. I am especially concerned for the welfare of children because of the harm that can be done to the psyche of a child if it is rejected and abused in public by people who mistake it as unwelcome. Whatever we do, we must remember that the welfare of children is paramount. That will happen only if the relevant authorities are consulted.
	I presume that not only the authorities but the voluntary sector would be included in that consultation. In my experience with Vietnamese refugees, the most important source of goodwill was the voluntary sector—the Churches, Rotary Clubs, and other friends and neighbours. As a result, people were willing to have other people living next door to them in the community. That is an important way to ensure that people are not left in ghettos. Even though they are being assessed, it is important in the present situation that they realise they can live at peace with those around them and that local people can treat them as friendly people to whom they can some day look up and with whom they can live.

Lord Avebury: I should like to pursue the question of the voluntary sector raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and to highlight one aspect of it: the provision of religious facilities for people in accommodation centres. There is only one sentence in the documents about such provision. In reply to the previous debate, the Minister said that there would be a chapel, a Muslim prayer room and a space for multi-faith religious observance. I suggest that Minister consults about that with the leaders of the various faiths.
	In the past, failure to consult in the case of private prisons led to disaster. I speak in particular of Dovegate and Rye Hill prisons where, because there was no consultation with the religious authorities, the space provided was grossly inadequate. It was nothing like as good as previously afforded to religious minorities. In the case of accommodation centres, it will be even more important to cater for such variability in the population. At one time there may be a large influx of people from a place such as Kosovo where people are primarily Muslim; at another, they may come from a country such as Sierra Leone, a mixture of Christian and Muslim; or from China, where a large proportion are Buddhist. Accommodation centres must attain a maximum degree of flexibility. I am not sure that that is reflected in the Government's thinking. The Minister kindly offered to display the architectural plans, which, I understood him to say, have already been finalised without any of the consultation for which we are asking.
	I appeal to the Minister to reconsider and not only to consult the authorities mentioned in the amendment but to think carefully about how religious facilities are to be provided in those centres. We must ensure that they provide the maximum flexibility to cater for the population concerned.

The Countess of Mar: The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked that local authorities, health authorities and police authorities be consulted. The suppliers of public utilities such as water and drainage, telecommunications, electricity and public transport should also be consulted. To consider Throckmorton again, the lanes to it from the main thoroughfares are narrow. The roads would have to be altered. Unemployment in not rife in Worcestershire; we are well provided for with employment. Where will the staff of the centre come from? Where will they be accommodated? What sort of transport will be provided for them to reach the establishment. All those issues need to be considered.
	The noble Baroness mentioned public libraries and cinemas. People need places of entertainment. People from Throckmorton, for example, would have to go to Pershore, Evesham or Worcester, all of which are some distance from the village. How will those facilities be provided for them? They cannot be thrown together in a year, or even in 18 months, they must be planned for over a long period. Health services, in particular, must be planned for over a long period. Especially if we are considering a number of 750 rather than 200, I ask the Minister to reconsider the timescale.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: As I understand it, my noble friend's amendment applies to the establishment of the centres and requires consultation before the provision of the centre is begun. Can the Minister confirm that any application for such a centre will require normal planning permission? If so, will it not be necessary for him to consult the local authority in advance and will not all the matters that my noble friend mentioned and the many others mentioned during the debate be relevant to the planning inquiry that will follow that application?

Baroness Uddin: I, too, support the principle behind the amendment, especially in relation to the local authority, police authorities and those concerned with the welfare and protection of children. They must not just be consulted on planning permission. Whether people are contained in an accommodation centre or in a family unit, times will inevitably arise when services will be required from outside. Local authorities, health authorities and police authorities, alongside others, will need to ensure that protocols and procedures are in place to incorporate services for women and children. I also concur entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about consulting religious and faith leaders. Given that it is a pilot scheme, it will stand us in good stead if we get it right.
	My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws spoke about services for, in particular, women and children caught up in domestic violence. It is important that police procedures be amended to include services for women. Can the Minister assure us that women who require women-only provision, such as women GPs or women-only leisure facilities, will also be considered in this context? Local authorities already make women-only provision, and health authorities make women-only provision for female patients and female customers or service users. It is important that such things are taken on board in the provision of services at accommodation centres.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I have not had the opportunity to participate in our debate this afternoon until now. My noble friend the Minister wants the proposed accommodation centres to work. It is as simple as that. It follows from that that there will be proper consultation with everybody who is affected by the proposition.
	With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, I do not think that she has defined adequately the people whom my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues will consult. There are many more people whom he will be inclined to consult about the importance of the situation of the accommodation centres. If planning permission is required, everybody mentioned in the amendment will be entitled to be heard. That being the case, it is important that we should not divide on the issue tonight. My noble friend should have the opportunity to consider whom he will consult and whether it is necessary for this proposition—or something like it—to be included in the Bill. At present, I am far from satisfied that it is; I will have to be convinced about that.
	It is accepted that the widest possible consultation will be undertaken. I have not heard anything that confutes that proposition.

Lord Judd: Does my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis agree that wide consultation is not just a matter of bringing in the relevant experts and authorities? There is the whole matter of community dynamics. If a centre is not to be a threat to a local community, there must be responsible and positive attitudes towards the centre in the community. The amount of time that the department puts into preparing the ground is central, in a positive sense, to the success of the operation.
	My noble friend the Minister has continually emphasised the fact that he wants the centres to be models of humane policy. I believe him. However, if that is to be the case, there must be a positive social dynamic, and there must be full consultation. If he can assure us that that will be a firm part of government policy, the amendment will be unnecessary.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I cannot remember an occasion on which I failed to agree with my noble friend Lord Judd. I share his view. However, the point that he made cannot be adequately recorded in the Bill.

Lord Greaves: At the risk of incurring the wrath of my noble friend Lord Russell, I shall make two or three additional points that have not yet been made. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said some of the things that I was going to say but said them rather more eloquently than I would have done.
	The Minister said that he had some plans that he would like to show us. Like other noble Lords, I would be glad to see them. If there is a plan for the site at Throckmorton, for example, and the other sites, planning for the sites must be at a rather more advanced stage than application for an outline planning decision on principle as to whether it would be sensible to have an accommodation centre at a particular site. Sensible developers often apply for outline permission before they go to the trouble of drawing up expensive detailed plans. Can the Minister clarify the position for us?
	In February, I believe, the Home Secretary promised full consultation on all the sites with a range of different bodies, including local communities. What consultation with local communities has taken place so far? Some of the sites have been public knowledge for a considerable time. What consultation with local communities is proposed? By local communities, I mean parish councils and local residents, not just local authorities. Will the Minister tell us about that?
	The Minister rightly said that 44,000 people had been dispersed to NASS accommodation in the community. Over half of those people live in the three regions of the North of England. I have no complaints about that. Because the Minister happens to have sent some of them to the little textiles town—as it once was—of Nelson, my life has been enriched by my getting to know some extraordinary people, discovering their history and helping some of them to settle in this country. That is fine. If the Minister wants to send more to Nelson, many of us would be delighted. However, Nelson is a town of 28,000 people. If the Minister suddenly decided to send 50,000 people—all the dispersed people—to Nelson, I would complain. That is the difference: it is a matter of scale.
	The Minister asked whether it was a bad thing to send 3,000 people to the rest of Britain. He is not sending 3,000 to the rest of Britain; he is sending 750 to four specific places. That is why the planning application and the consultation are so important.
	I have read the Hansard reports of the debates in another place. Several Members of Parliament—mainly Conservatives—expressed some concerns. Members of the Government accused them, in no uncertain terms, of Nimbyism. Nimbyism is often not a generous or attractive thing, but the fact that someone lives in a particular place does not mean that they do not know about that place and cannot put forward perfectly good arguments about the effect that things will have on it. The people who are called Nimbys, just because they happen to live in a particular place, are not necessarily wrong. They are not necessarily right either. They have the same right to put forward their views and arguments as everybody else, and they have more motivation to do so because they live there. The instant and rather shallow accusation of Nimbyism is often a cover for not being able to answer the arguments. I am not suggesting that the Minister has done that today—clearly he has not—and that is to his credit.
	Finally, in such developments the law of unintended consequences must be considered. Two examples of the problems caused in the area were given to us when we visited Sangatte and met the mayors of Sangatte and other local villages. Some members of the group laughed at them and thought, "Here are parish politicians, local peasants, introducing irrelevancies". Some of us who have a history of grass-roots political activity thought that what we were being told was really quite exciting.
	First, we were told about local bus services. From the rural areas there was not a good bus service into Calais and other centres. Fifty residents of the Sangatte centre suddenly turned up at a bus stop and boarded a local bus. People who used the bus service to take their children to school or to go shopping suddenly found that they could not do so because it was full of young men from Iran, Afghanistan and so forth. That is innocuous in itself but needs to be taken into account when putting a big institution in the countryside.
	Secondly, we were told that many people there who come from Afghanistan or Kurdistan were used to countryside in which they had what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I know as "the right to roam". That was mentioned in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. It is open pastoral country and people walk anywhere without complaint from anyone. Therefore, when those people wanted to walk from the Sangatte centre into Calais or to the rail terminal, they merely walked across the fields as though they were at home. It has therefore been necessary for them to undergo an education process; that in the enclosed farmland of the Calais area it is not done and people stick to footpaths.
	I then wondered what recreational facilities people will have in the areas we are considering. Jokingly, I thought that the Home Office should perhaps fund the local county council to have a rights of way improvement programme in the areas surrounding the accommodation centres because walking in the countryside will be about all they can do. I then thought that perhaps that was not such a daft idea because if people want to walk from A to B, footpaths and roads must be provided, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, pointed out.
	Those small changes will make all the difference in ensuring, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, that if the accommodation centres are built, they fit into the local communities. They will bear on whether the centres cause all kinds of difficulties and problems which people have not considered or planned for in advance because they seem trivial.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the planning application goes forward, all these points will arise. I believe that the Government will not have an easy time obtaining planning permission.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, talked about consultation on the provision of spiritual care for those who live in the accommodation centres. It is an important matter. I speak not from personal experience but from that of episcopal colleagues. For example, at Yarl's Wood a slightly different kind of accommodation has been provided. The Church of England worked extremely hard to provide good chaplaincy care. However, we are talking about a wide range of spiritual care for people from all over the world.
	In my previous post, I had responsibility for West Dorset where there were three penal institutions: a young offenders' institution; a local prison; and a high security prison on Portland. Most of the prisoners had been picked up for drug trafficking offences at ports and airports. They came from all over the world. It was a cosmopolitan population. My conversations with the chaplains there centred on how extremely difficult it was to make adequate provision for the spiritual care of members of the Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu faiths. Those who cared for them came only infrequently and sometimes had to travel long distances.
	The proper care of those who will live in accommodation centres is highly relevant. It is yet another reason why we should not place large groupings of such people in rural areas where that provision will be difficult.

Lord Filkin: The amendment is designed to ensure that accommodation centres can be established only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that consultation has taken place with the relevant local authorities, health authorities and police authorities.
	I want to reassure the Committee that we understand the need to engage with relevant bodies in assessing the suitability of the location of accommodation centres and the adequacy of the facilities on site. We are committed to making the accommodation centres work. The Home Office recognises that it does not have a monopoly on expertise. We need the input of others. We want to work closely with others; to harness their experience so that the accommodation centres cater for the needs of residents; to minimise any adverse impact on local services; and to provide the necessary assurances to the local community.
	We are meeting local authorities in the areas where we have decided to submit planning notifications; that is, in Bicester, Newton and Throckmorton. We will do so in respect of any other sites where planning notifications will be made. We have arranged regular meetings with the Department of Health to take forward healthcare issues. It is using its knowledge and experience and has involved the primary care trusts in the areas concerned.
	With the police, security is obviously of major importance. Asylum seekers in the centres need to feel safe and members of the local community also want reassurance. Let me stress that there is no evidence that asylum seekers are more prone to committing crimes, but of course I understand the concerns that any community will have when a new establishment is created nearby. Again, we are meeting police forces in the relevant areas and that will be part of a continuing dialogue.
	I do not want to pre-empt discussions on later amendments, but our creation of a monitor for accommodation centres makes clear that we expect the monitor to consult appropriate bodies. That reflects the fact that we will be working closely with bodies such as the police and we want the monitor to be looking at how we have done that.
	We are intending to provide a wide range of services and facilities on site, including education, healthcare, purposeful activities and access to legal advice. The aim has been to minimise the impact on local services and aid the creation of self-contained communities within the centres. But, clearly, where further facilities are necessary—and secondary healthcare which cannot be provided on site is a good example—we want to ensure that, through discussions with the relevant bodies, we take full account of these in deciding on the site's location.
	Let me also stress that we are committed to full consultation on the proposed accommodation centre sites. Exhibitions took place in the Bicester area on 10th and 11th June and more than 300 people attended. Exhibitions in respect of the RAF Newton site were held in the Nottingham area on 18th and 19th June and more than 800 people attended. Beverley Hughes has also visited Bicester and Newton and met local representatives and we will do the same in the other places in due course. We have not yet finalised proposals for the Throckmorton area.
	In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, we have not used the fast-track process, known as "special urgency procedures", following representations from local people. We want to engage fully with local people. Clearly, if there were to be an adverse planning consideration by the local authority, it would be open to the Government to lodge an appeal if they thought that appropriate.
	Furthermore, planning notification for Throckmorton is still in preparation, although we have submitted it for Bicester and Newton. We understand that two notifications are being considered by the planning authorities this week. If planning is refused, we will consider the basis of the rejection and reflect on it. After proper consideration, we may decide to appeal. If we appeal, we will send the papers to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the DPM will decide what to do in that respect under his planning responsibilities. In such a circumstance, it is likely that a public inquiry will be arranged. The planning inspectorate within the ODPM will appoint an inspector and manage the public inquiry process and the inspector will then make a recommendation to the DPM. There will be no attempt to override normal processes. The opening date of 2003 is entirely conditional upon the planning process. We do not yet know the position in respect of notifications. As to a planning reform Bill, planning applications for trial centres will be made under existing legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked whether parish councils are being consulted. They are, as part of the planning process. Officials have visited the accommodation centre locations at Bicester and Newton.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the important issue of religious observance. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to arrange facilities under Clause 26(1)(h). They will include appropriate washing facilities, quiet association rooms and small prayer rooms—and there will be a manager of religious affairs at each site.

Lord Avebury: I asked whether the Minister thought that it would be appropriate to consult the leaders of the relevant faiths—an action lacking in the past.

Lord Filkin: It is a good day for interventions. If the noble Lord had waited 15 seconds, I would have come to that point. Drawing on experience of prisons and detention centres, a religious advisory group has been established to develop policy and offer advice. It is chaired by the director of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and comprises eight members from various faiths—including the chaplain general of the Prison Service. As ever, we are open to further advice and views. We want to work with local religious leaders and organisations on detailed implementation, if it comes to that, at any of the specific sites. Some have already made clear their wish to be involved.
	The noble Countess, Lady Mar, raised a number of points about planning and infrastructure. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, indicated, the notification will deal with each of the points raised as part of the planning process. The notification of the Throckmorton site has not yet been submitted, precisely because work on detailed points is still being done.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, asked about women-only provision. If strictly necessary for planning permission, such a provision will certainly be considered. If women-only provision is part of a wider question, we will consider how best to address it.
	The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Greaves, asked about the status of plans. No architectural plans have been finalised but the Home Office has, through its advisers, produced a generic model as a starting point—to give some understanding of how things might be done, for discussion with potential contractors and others.
	I strongly agree with the stress placed by the right reverend Prelate on spiritual care. If he feels that we ought to bear in mind further representations, we will receive them with gratitude.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about the educational process—for example, UK norms in respect of walking through fields. We have anticipated that we will need to do some orientation on UK cultural and social norms as part of the initial purposeful activities for adults.
	The debate ranged over the consultation that is right and necessary as part of a planning application. I have signalled how we will respond. It would be proper to have wider and continuing consultations in respect of any site or location if it looked as though an accommodation centre were to be built there. That is different from the planning process and involves further consultation with service providers and local communities about the construction period, developing facilities and involving the local community. The Government want those forms of wider consultation and involvement over and above and beyond the planning process. In light of that information, I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The amendment's purpose was to obtain clarification of the rules that will govern the choice of locations. My noble friend Lord Carlisle hit the nail on the head. If proper planning processes are followed, all the right people should be consulted. Until today, our concern was that the planning procedures had not been put on the record. I am grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity to follow that through.
	I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for questioning the Minister over the impression that decisions have already been made. We gained that impression after debates in another place and from conversations with outside organisations. The Minister said that the architectural information will take the form of a generic model rather than a signed, sealed and delivered final plan. That statement will reassure people living near a proposed accommodation centre.
	This pump-priming debate was designed to identify which organisations ought to be on the Government's list for consultation. My noble friend Lord Renton reminded the Committee of the importance of parish councils as the starting point for local democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, reminded us of the importance of consulting voluntary organisations. I was intrigued by the reference to his experience of welcoming refugees from Vietnam. In the 1970s, I worked for a while as a volunteer with the Ockenden Venture and had experience of providing the right kind of facilities in welcoming people from different communities to this country.
	I am grateful to the Minister for putting on the record more clearly than before the steps that the Government are taking to stage exhibitions for the guidance of people who are likely to find themselves living near accommodation centres, so that they can ask questions and find out precisely what will be in store. We will hold the Minister to his commitments and may return at Report stage to questions about planning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 101:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
	"ESTABLISHMENT OF VISITING COMMITTEES AND INSPECTION ARRANGEMENTS
	(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a committee (in this Part referred to as a "visiting committee") in respect of each accommodation centre established under this Part.
	(2) The functions of visiting committees shall be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
	(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall include provision as to the following—
	(a) the making of visits by members of a visiting committee to an accommodation centre,
	(b) the hearing by members of a visiting committee of complaints made by persons accommodated at an accommodation centre,
	(c) the making of reports by a visiting committee to the Secretary of State, and
	(d) the right of each member of a visiting committee at any time to enter an accommodation centre and to have free access to every part of it and to every person accommodated or otherwise present on the premises.
	(4) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall include further provision in respect of the membership of visiting committees, and in particular shall include provision as to the following—
	(a) the minimum number of members of a visiting committee,
	(b) the appointment of members of a visiting committee, and
	(c) the appointment to each visiting committee of persons holding a particular qualification or occupying a particular position.
	(5) An accommodation centre may also be inspected (and a report on the inspection made to the Secretary of State) by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the Social Services Inspectorate whenever either thinks it appropriate.
	(6) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament an annual summary of the reports submitted to him in respect of accommodation centres by virtue of the provisions of this section.
	(7) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe that other persons and bodies may have such functions in respect of the visiting and inspection of accommodation centres as may be specified in the order."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: With this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 137, 127 to 131, 133 and 134 in my name and to Amendments Nos. 126, 135 and 132 in the name of the noble Lord the Minister.
	I welcome the latter amendments, which reflect the Government's commitment at Second Reading to respond to the proposals made by my honourable friend Mr. Malins at Report stage in another place. I am glad that my honourable friend—who is the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which I live—was so persuasive that the Government have brought forward their own amendments.
	The establishment of visiting committees—or advisory groups, as the government amendments describe them—is, I hope, an uncontroversial issue. Before I entered your Lordships' House I served as a magistrate and visited prisons occasionally, so have first-hand experience of the work done by visiting committees. I was always impressed by the high quality of their work. They have no axe to grind and talk to inmates, hear grievances and make positive suggestions. Visiting committees are an important safety valve.
	I have tabled amendments to the government amendments as the basis for questions. I am intrigued by the creation of two structures to do the job of a visiting committee. It seems that there will be both an advisory committee and a person or job share person who will monitor accommodation centres. That may be a great improvement on my amendments but I need to scrutinise the Government's proposals. What is the differentiation between the advisory committee and monitor as regards their duties, powers and accountability to the Secretary of State and Parliament? It seems as the advisory committees will have no teeth. When they report to the Secretary of State, will they produce recommendations? What will the Secretary of State do with them? Will they be published? Will we be able to see them? What will be their status if they are published?
	As to the monitor, what influence will he or she have in making sure that wrongs, if they exist, are put right? In particular, what role will the monitor have in regard to resolving any contractual difficulties that may arise as a result of disputes over the proper provision of contracted-out services?
	Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 126 states that the Secretary of State "may" by regulations confer functions on advisory groups and make provision about their constitution and proceedings. I ask the usual question: why not "shall". If "shall provide" is not in the Bill, it looks as though the Secretary of State simply will not put into effect his plans for these advisory groups.
	Subsection (6) states that the Secretary of State may defray the expenses of members of the group or make facilities available to them. If the Secretary of State did not do that it would be a nonsense because no work would take place.
	What is likely to be the membership of the advisory group? Will the members be representative of professional or cultural groups? What is the Government's intention on this matter? How will they go about appointing them? It is vital that people from a variety of backgrounds with a variety of experience are encouraged to become members of these advisory groups and to apply to become the monitor. The Government will not attract such people unless they can clearly see that it is a responsible, accountable and worthwhile job. Will the Minister tell the Committee how he would persuade a likely applicant that that is the case? I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: We on this side of the House support not only the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, but a number of the suggestions in the government amendments. From my own involvement as a magistrate at one time and a member of a board of visitors, like the noble Baroness I can see that this pattern fits in with the concern that has often been expressed concerning the need for appropriate visiting committees, advisory committees or advisory groups to assist in the task faced by such accommodation centres.
	Perhaps I may ask one or two questions. First, will the situation envisaged in the government amendment run somewhat parallel to the situation in prisons in the sense that the monitor's function will follow very closely that of the prisons ombudsman? I am not quite sure whether the explanation that has been offered here reflects precisely that situation.
	My second point concerns the membership of the advisory group or the visiting group. There is a need to involve voluntary agencies and someone from the local area in the membership of such groups. We have heard many arguments, some of which have put forward practical suggestions, but if local people are involved in the accommodation centres through their membership of these groups it will certainly help. The involvement—we spoke earlier of consultation—of religious groups in these bodies would also be beneficial.
	The suggestion for visiting committees was initially made by Sir David Ramsbotham in one of his reports after he had inspected a detention centre. We are on the right track here. All that we need to do is to tidy up the differences between what is suggested in the noble Baroness's amendment and what the Government have in mind. If we bring them together I am sure that we shall have an active, participating committee, which will be to the benefit of not only the Government and the accommodation centre managers but of all those involved in the process.

Lord Judd: These amendments are extremely important. As I argued earlier, we want a positive attitude in the community towards these centres. What the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said is very significant. It is important that active organisations with social commitment within the community should have access to these places as a natural part of their activity. It would be good to have ministerial assurance that that will be possible.
	I cannot help being slightly amused by the debate. I feel that if our positions were reversed—God forbid—and we were sitting on the Opposition side of the House and the Opposition were sitting on this side, there would be a reversal of roles in terms of the arguments being advanced. I can imagine that we would be saying, very toughly, "No. If we are going to have supervision it must have muscle. It must be regulatory. It cannot be only advisory because that would be a tool of the administration. We want to make sure that there is real, independent judgment".
	This is an important point. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take it seriously and deal with it. We do not want to feel that this is only a fan club for the administration, albeit by another name. We want to feel that it is a body which is doing a real job on behalf of the community.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: Perhaps I may ask two questions in regard to the amendment. First, what kind of persons will the visitors be? Will they be volunteers, as so many prison visitors are? There are not many people outside this House who will do a job without expenses, particularly young people with responsibilities. What kind of people have we in mind who will take on the job of being visitors?
	My second question concerns timing. I have seen nothing about how many times visitors will call in. It is important to know whether it will be once a year, once every six months, or whatever. All noble Lords who have had constituencies can envisage a situation where some person who is appointed as a visitor turns out to be a real busybody. We propose giving them the right to go in at any time, with free access to every part of and every person in the centre. If there are no regular meetings, who will say whether it is right and proper for a single visitor to appear at any time and demand to see X or Y? I can envisage the severe difficulties that that would cause for the staff.
	I apologise to the Committee that, due to an arrangement that I cannot alter, I am unable to remain in the Chamber. I shall read in Hansard the Minister's replies to the questions I have raised.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I wish to explain why I believe that Amendment No. 101 is preferable to government Amendment No. 132. First, the hearing of complaints, which Amendment No. 101 specifies, is a highly important function. It is not laid down as one of the functions of the Government's proposed monitor.
	Secondly, free access at any time is also an important component of effective checking and monitoring. The fire which destroyed the Yarlswood centre broke out at night-time. One is therefore led to believe that disturbances and problems are likely to be at their worst at night.
	Perhaps I may illustrate the possible working of Amendment No. 101 from my experience in Northern Ireland. NIACRO, of which I have the honour to be president, organised the recruitment and the training—which will be very important for visitors—of lay visitors for so-called training schools in which young offenders are kept for quite long periods. The impact of these trained lay visitors has been favourable and positive, particularly because they have been able to listen to inmates' complaints.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I sympathise with the amendment principally on the grounds set out by my noble friend Lord Judd. If accommodation centres are to function properly it is important that they are not seen as detention centres or prisons by another name. They have to work as part of the local community. I am well aware of many criticisms regarding the proposal for accommodation at Throckmorton. If and when the centres are established, I hope that they will reach out to the local community. In areas with few leisure and other facilities it may be possible to welcome people from the local community into the centres. I hope that church groups and nursery and other schools would want to build links, going into the centres, with those in the centres taking part in the local community. I was impressed by earlier remarks about encouraging residents in that regard.
	Does the Minister feel able to accept the principle underlying the establishment of visiting committees? I assume that it will be one visiting committee per accommodation centre in order to encourage and foster local links along the lines of boards of visitors in prisons of which I have some experience. I have a great deal of pride with regard to one board of visitors but I shall not weary the Committee with that.
	The establishment of a visiting committee is not in opposition to the appointment of a single monitor for the accommodation centres. The two can run side by side. The monitor may welcome the grass roots eyes-and-ears work of such visiting committees. That work may supplement the monitor's work. He or she may travel throughout the country, initially to four centres, but over time perhaps to many more. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss the proposal out of hand but will consider whether the two bodies can run side by side.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord talks a great deal of sense from experience. Some time ago I, too, was involved in a visiting committee. One became an advocate for the establishment within the locality. The one I represented was a borstal; it was a long time ago. It was a fairly small organisation. It was important that it was accepted within the community. But the members of the visiting committee, or whatever it is called, must be local people. One or two members may come from a distance; I do not know. But if we are to believe that the proposal will work, the Minister must give us that assurance. The main purpose of a visiting committee is to advocate the institution to the community. It also assists with complaints, and so on, but that can be done in other ways. I hope that the Minister will take on board the crucial fact that the members must be local.

Lord Avebury: I am a little concerned that Amendment No. 126 is extremely vague about what the advisory groups will do and the manner in which they are to be appointed or dismissed. I had some involvement in a controversy—the Minister may remember it—relating to the board of visitors at Haslar where the Secretary of State at the time, having taken it into his head that certain members of the board of visitors were not doing their job properly, dismissed them. I am concerned that there is no provision in Amendment No. 126 for proper appeals to be allowed in cases where the Secretary of State decides that such action is the right course to pursue.
	I presume that the Minister wants the advisory group to be fully independent and to act in an analogous way to the board of visitors in a prison. The advisory group should be totally independent of the Government and should report fearlessly on any matters which come to its notice with regard to the proper operation of the accommodation centre. Therefore, safeguards against the arbitrary dismissal of members of the advisory group should be written into the statute.
	If the advisory group is analogous to the board of visitors, the monitor is analogous to the chief inspector. In that regard, perhaps I may ask the Minister why the monitor does not have the right or duty to make reports on particular accommodation centres. He or she is only to report once a year to the Secretary of State on all the matters which come within his purview. It would be wise to provide him at least with the power to inspect individual accommodation centres, with or without notice, and to make reports on that accommodation centre to the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister can say that the Government are sufficiently flexible to take these matters into consideration.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have contributed to the discussion. I believe that we have made progress. I hope that some of the responses I give in Committee will put minds at rest on the intention behind the Government's amendment.
	We said in another place that we were considering carefully the merits of something along the lines of a visiting committee for accommodation centres. I argue that government Amendment No. 126 reflects the outcome of our deliberations. Visiting committees are, after all, an established feature of removal centres. I want to emphasise again that accommodation centres are very different in concept to removal centres. In particular, residents will not be detained. They will be free to come and go subject to certain residence and reporting requirements.
	Having said that, we recognise the need to be open and transparent and to ensure that those concerned about the treatment of asylum seekers in accommodation centres receive assurance and reassurance. There is a commonality within this Chamber that that is our aim.
	We shall set up accommodation centre advisory groups, one for each accommodation centre. Before I get into more of the detail, perhaps I may say a word on the name. We felt it important to differentiate between accommodation centres and removal centres, partly due to the different nature of the centres but, on a more practical level, to avoid any potential confusion for those who may wish to become a member of such a group. But beyond that, we have based the functions of the advisory groups very much on the model for visiting committees. Members of the groups will visit the centre, hear any complaints made by residents of the centre, and have the opportunity to report to the Secretary of State on their findings.
	We are ensuring also that the manager of the centre must permit a member of the advisory group to visit the centre at any time on request and to visit any resident of the centre at any time on request, provided that the resident consents.
	Government Amendment No. 135 is consequential on the above and includes reference to advisory groups in Clause 33. This will mean that the regulations made in respect of the advisory groups will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, reflecting a similar level of scrutiny to regulations made in respect of visiting committees for removal centres under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made plain that her amendments were tabled very much to probe the Government's intentions by saying that it would be very odd to make it a duty to have regulations conferring functions on an advisory group, and making provision about consultation and proceedings of advisory groups.
	In Section 152 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which relates to visiting committees for removal centres, a similar form of words is used whereby the function of a visiting committee may be prescribed by removal centre rules. We see no need for Amendment No. 127. Amendment No. 128 would require regulations to make provision for advisory groups to make recommendations to the Secretary of State, in addition to submitting a report to him. Again, we do not see that as necessary. I am sure that any reports will contain recommendations where the advisory group believes that this is both necessary and appropriate.
	Amendment No. 129 would require regulations to make provision for advisory groups to report to the monitor of accommodation centres, as well as the Secretary of State. It is not clear from the amendment whether separate reports are envisaged. Again, we do not see the need for this requirement. In any event, the monitor will be under a duty to consult such bodies, as he considers appropriate. Where he sees the need to consult advisory groups—I am confident that the monitor will—the groups will no doubt be able to make any of their findings known to him. I should also be happy for the Secretary of State to make any reports made by advisory groups available to the monitor where it was felt that it would be appropriate.
	Amendment No. 130 would make it a duty on the Secretary of State to defray expenses of members of an advisory group and make facilities available to them. This seems a rather onerous proposition. The Secretary of State will want to reimburse fully the members of advisory groups for reasonable expenses incurred, and to make the facility available to them. There is no indication that existing arrangements in respect of payment of expenses for visiting committees have run into difficulties. There is no statutory obligation in that case.
	Amendment No. 131 would make it a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual summary of reports and recommendations received from advisory groups. We see no need for a statutory requirement for this to be done. Naturally, the Secretary of State will want to pay close attention to reports from the advisory group. He may also want to consider whether a summary of all, or some parts, of the report should be published, or brought to the attention of Parliament. Again, I should stress that the report from the independent monitor will, in any event, be laid before Parliament.
	The Government's amendment, Amendment No. 132, requires the Secretary of State to appoint a person as a monitor of accommodation centres. We believe that the creation of a monitor demonstrates the clear commitment on the Government's part to ensure that centres are run efficiently and that asylum seekers are treated well with their needs being met. This will also provide a valuable contribution to the overall evaluation of the accommodation centres during the trial period.
	We have considered most carefully the question of inspection arrangements, a point valuably raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. We want to do all we can to ensure that there is confidence in the system. By introducing both advisory groups and, now, a monitor, we are providing the necessary reassurances to those who have expressed concern about the way that asylum seekers will be treated and about the overall operation of the centres. In particular, we have provided for the monitor to consider the quality and effectiveness of the accommodation and the facilities provided. Clearly, the accommodation provision will be of great importance to those required to reside there. As we have made plain, we want to get that right.
	We have also made clear our desire for asylum seekers to be occupied at the centres through a wide range of facilities, such as basic skills training, sporting activities and IT skills and development. Again, this is vital if the centres are to work in the way we envisage. The monitor will look at these activities to assess the quality and range of provision and the overall effect on the residents.
	We also think it right for the monitor to consider the nature and enforcement of conditions of residence. By virtue of Clause 27, the conditions will be set out in regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Anyone required to leave an accommodation centre as a result of breach of conditions will have a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator. But, naturally, the conditions and how they are enforced will have an important bearing on the whole nature of the centres. We are well aware of the concerns expressed in another place about the effect of breaches of conditions, and the withdrawal of support. I believe that the monitor's role in that regard will help provide another level of reassurance about how we are enforcing conditions of residence, and how we seek to ensure a common-sense approach that takes account both of the importance of asylum seekers complying with their obligations and the need not to over-react to minor instances of breach. For example, the monitor will be able to consider whether guidance has been followed consistently across different accommodation centres.
	The monitor will need to have access to a wide range of people to gain the full picture of how the accommodation centres are run, what their purpose is, and the treatment of residents. So we have made provision for the monitor to consult the Secretary of State, and any other person the monitor may feel is appropriate. In this other category, I should envisage in particular the involvement of local authorities, the police, and especially refugee organisations.
	The monitor will provide an annual report to the Secretary of State that will be laid before Parliament. Again, this demonstrates the Government's commitment to openness. It is not just a case of the need for a once-a-year report. We all want to improve and develop as we go on, building on examples of good practice—and challenging any examples of bad practice—that are encountered.
	Finally, we have made provision for more than one person to act jointly as monitor. We believe that this is a sensible provision, given the fact that we are trialling the accommodation centres and that there will be a limited number in the trial phase. If they are successful—clearly the monitor's reports will help us establish whether or not that is the case—we shall want to create more. At that stage, we shall need to review whether the necessary work could be carried out by just one monitor.
	In the light of those arrangements, I argue that the Opposition's amendments are unnecessary. I refer to Amendment No. 101, which has attracted a degree of sympathy during this discussion, and Amendments Nos. 133 and 134. Just as we would expect the monitor to consult such bodies as the police and refugee organisations, we would expect consultation to take place with advisory groups. However, it is right to allow the monitor to make the final judgment as to whom he considers appropriate.
	A number of additional points were raised regarding membership of an advisory group; for example, who might be members and how people could become members. I shall try to answer those points. I was asked how someone could become a member. The Secretary of State will be responsible for appointing members. We are likely to build on existing arrangements for visiting committees. We certainly intend to ensure that information about how one can join an advisory group will be made easily accessible. It will certainly be posted on the IND website.
	I was also asked whether members of an advisory group would be paid. I believe I made it clear that travelling expenses will be covered. Again, that is very much in keeping with current visiting committee arrangements. The number of members on an advisory group was also queried. We have not yet sought to specify a minimum or a maximum number because we want further to consider the matter. We shall listen to what noble Lords have to say in that respect so as to ensure that the groups can be effective in discharging their functions.

Lord Avebury: Can the Minister say what arrangements the Secretary of State intends to make for ensuring that the members of visiting committees are adequately representative of the ethnic minorities who will be housed in the accommodation centres?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. It is important for such a consideration to be put on the record. We do not have preconceptions as to who might be a member of an advisory group. We believe that there will be a wide range of interested persons. We expect representations from Church and charitable organisations to come forward with a particular interest. We want to encourage people with compassion, understanding, an open-minded approach, and, obviously, a sense of justice and fair play.
	Given the nature of the work involved, we also envisage making security and status checks on all candidates—and, also, to the extent permissible, on their spouse or partner. We envisage applicants completing a form in which they will need to specify any conviction. So we want people of good standing in the community.
	The question was raised as to whether people from the local population might want to join advisory groups. We would want to encourage that as it may well be in the best interests of the development of the groups. I hope that I have covered the range of questions on this matter.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether the monitors would have a role in resolving contractual disputes. We do not see a role for the monitor in those situations. Our view is that the contract will be between the Secretary of State and the provider of services. But the monitor will bring concerns that have been expressed about the operation of contracts and arrangements to the Secretary of State, and they may well be reflected in any annual report that is made.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry to stop the noble Lord when he is getting on so well, but I am thinking about what would happen in the case of a centre in Scotland. Is it anticipated that the Secretary of State referred to in Amendment No. 132 will be the Secretary of State for Scotland, appointing a monitor for the Scottish centres; or will the Home Secretary monitor all the centres through appointments made by him? I do not know whether the point has been considered. It is clearly important. This is not a simple devolution issue; it is a reserved matter and the centres are being placed in Scotland as part of a system. It will certainly need to be thought about if that has not happened already.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I should perhaps have anticipated that the noble Baroness would raise the Scottish question. My understanding is that it is a reserved matter, so I believe that it will fall to the Secretary of State. However, if I am wrong, I shall endeavour to correct that statement.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Which Secretary of State?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Home Secretary.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the question of whether the monitor's function was close to that of the prisons ombudsman. The monitor will be required to monitor the operation of accommodation centres. It is not our intention that the monitor should deal with complaints. The advisory group will want to do that.
	I was asked whether the monitors would have teeth. Yes, it is our intention that they will have teeth. I am sure that Parliament will want to hold us properly to account on that. It is only right that that is carried through.
	I hope that I have answered all the points raised. The debate has been most helpful. It will help us to focus on what will need to be the content of the regulations. We have listened carefully to what has been said in the debate and we shall reflect on all the important points raised. I very much welcome the support that we have received across the Dispatch Box from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I believe that we have come a long way in meeting many of the concerns expressed in another place and by Members of the Committee this evening.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I think the Minister is slightly ahead of himself on this occasion. I have not quite withdrawn my amendment yet; he must give me a chance.
	I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate on this rather large group of amendments covering an important issue. I am grateful to those noble Lords who expressed some sympathy with what is perhaps the slight superiority of my Amendment No. 101 because of the extra authority that it would give to what I would term the visiting committees and the Government refer to as the advisory group and the monitor.
	I was particularly struck by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, that we must be careful not to let the accommodation centres be detention centres by another name. It is important that people appointed to the advisory groups reach out into the community and that the community takes part in the life of the accommodation centre so that there is integration.
	The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, made a point about discussions with outside groups which was referred to only briefly by the Minister. I shall have to examine the remarks carefully in Hansard. The point is that we are seeing the setting up of an organisation for just four trial places, but it will need to be flexible enough and have sufficient authority to be able to act properly in respect of all other areas.
	My noble friend Lady Carnegy was, as ever, right to raise the Scottish question. I shall want to examine the Minister's response carefully and take advice on the matter.
	At this stage, it is right that I consult the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Council as to whether they think that the very full answer given by the Minister has addressed all their concerns, or whether there are any remaining matters that we may need to bring back. This is the first occasion that we have had the opportunity of hearing such a full explanation of how the Government intend the new advisory groups and the monitor to act.
	Now I can please the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill should begin again not before 8.36 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these regulations will help local authorities to improve air quality by reducing the number of illegally polluting vehicles on England's roads.
	No new offences are created. What we propose are powers for local authorities to enforce what are already statutory offences. These powers have already been trialed successfully by seven local authorities. We are imposing no new burden on local authorities, as the powers will be optional—although we hope that many local authorities will be keen to adopt them.
	The regulations provide two sets of powers. The first will enable local authorities with severe air quality problems—defined as air quality management areas—to carry out tests at the roadside of any car, bus or lorry to identify and penalise those who exceed prescribed emissions limits. It is a sad fact that many drivers pay little attention to their vehicle except when their MOT is due. The National Audit Office has estimated that up to 20 per cent of vehicles on Britain's roads are polluting illegally. We hope that knowing that they could receive a £60 penalty for failing a roadside test will encourage more drivers to take proper care of their vehicles.
	The second set of powers will enable all local authorities in England to take action against drivers who leave their vehicle engines running unnecessarily when parked. The few drivers who refuse requests to switch off their engines may face a £20 penalty. There are many examples, but I am thinking in particular of coaches in busy town centres and cars outside schools or railway stations. I think we all know how unpleasant this can be, as well as unhealthy.
	No one should be in any doubt as to how to avoid these penalties, as local authorities will be publicising them quite widely.
	There are 25 regulations, which I can read out in detail—but there are indications that that would not be welcome. So, in conclusion, I have no hesitation in commending the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the purpose of the regulations. I declare an interest, as I am president of the Heavy Transport Association and am closely involved with many other trade associations.
	I do not support the principle behind the regulations. I believe that they will not be effective and that they will be an unnecessary interference with motorists. I shall try to explain why.
	The first problem is that, when vehicles are presented for an MOT test, they have to be specially prepared to make sure that the engine will not be damaged during the testing procedure. A particular weak point is the cambelt. Failure of this can cause serious damage to the engine. What precautions will be taken before the emissions test takes place, or is it entirely different from the test carried out at the MOT station? If so, will this test be effective?
	The second problem is that the tests are unnecessary. Tests are already carried out during the MOT test. The Minister alluded to that. Is there a problem with the tests undertaken at the MOT station? These tests are carried out in a controlled environment. The testers have to be careful to make sure that the engine is at the right operating temperature. I have referred to maintenance problems. On average, vehicles cover only 12,000 miles per annum. They will not go out of tune in that distance. Of course, some vehicles, particularly those used for commercial travelling, cover very high mileages, but they are generally in fleets, they are generally new vehicles and they are generally well maintained.
	A third problem that worries me is Regulation 12, which deals with the stopping of engines when vehicles are stationary. It refers to "a stationary idling offence". What offence is that? There is no cross-reference in the regulations. I was not aware that it was a specific offence. It is obviously undesirable to leave an engine idling for long periods. I often switch off my engine for that reason. However, it could be counter-productive to stop an engine, because certain types of engine can emit large amounts of pollution on start-up. Do Euro emissions standards cover emissions on start-up of an engine?
	Surely the issue is a matter of judgment for the driver. Education of the driver will be far more useful. That links in with my other concerns about improving general driving standards. To switch off an engine is just good driving.
	We are looking at penalising drivers for the technicality of not stopping an engine, but on the other hand inconsiderate and discourteous drivers will get away scot-free.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. My party supports the detail of the regulations and the principles that lie behind them. We particularly welcome the fact that they come about after the trials have taken place. That enables lessons to be learnt.
	Local authorities in particular will welcome the offer of an extra £4 million in grant towards the cost of running the emissions testing. The trials have proved that it costs a good deal more to run the tests than is received in fixed penalty income. That could create a perverse incentive for local authorities. Those that were effective in running deterrent and educational campaigns would lose more money than those that were not. The provision is most welcome.
	It is also important to address the fears, however unfounded, that some local authorities may use the tests as a revenue-raising mechanism rather than to achieve air quality targets. I have two questions for the noble Lord. First, can he confirm that, although local authorities will carry out the emissions testing, only the police have the power to pull vehicles over? In that case, is it possible for local authorities to use the grant to help towards the police costs of running these tests? If the police choose not to use their resources in that way, the entire strategy will begin to collapse. The tests are also very useful to the police, because vehicles that are the worst offenders on emissions often do not have an MOT or valid insurance and road tax.
	Secondly, why do the emissions testing provisions relate just to designated air quality management areas, while the provisions on idling engines are universal?

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am not sure why the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is against the regulations. I find them eminently acceptable, especially for commercial vehicles. The noble Earl has said that commercial vehicles have to be specially prepared for the MOT.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I said that all vehicles, particularly light cars, have to be specially prepared.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I take the noble Earl's point. However, if they have to be specially prepared, that means by inference that before testing, and presumably at some time after testing, they do not comply with the regulations. The regulations will cover those whose emissions are no longer within the specified limits.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am sorry to test the patience of the House. By "specially prepared" I mean that it is necessary to make sure that the camshaft drive-belt has been changed within the period stipulated by the manufacturer. If the camshaft drive-belt breaks when the engine is being revved at high speed, it will cause catastrophic failure of the engine. I am not referring necessarily to trying to make sure that the engine is up to emissions standards. It is purely to make sure that the cambelt is in good condition to withstand the test procedure.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I fully understand what the noble Earl is saying. However, the camshaft belt is a standard item that has to be changed when it is due to be changed, otherwise the consequences can be dire.
	I support the regulations, but I have one question. A vehicle can idle anywhere. Supermarkets have come within the regulations concerning various matters. Will idling the engine while waiting for x number of minutes for someone in a supermarket to come out fall within the regulations?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I have one question, which is proactive rather than reactive. I admire the nature of the regulations. I was an inner-city Member of Parliament covering a local authority that was given responsibility for carrying out the pilot projects on this form of testing. My recollection is that at that time the local authority took the view that a considerable amount of the air pollution in the centre of London was caused by the fact that 20 per cent of taxis were maintained in cowboy garages on the perimeter of the inner city. I drive a diesel-powered car, but I very rarely drive it in London because I am conscious that it is a great deal less efficient there than it is outside. Is there any provision in these 25 regulations for moving against the cowboy garages, or is the responsibility entirely on the owners or drivers of the vehicles? Only the other evening I was discussing the economics of the taxi trade with the person who was driving me. Taxi drivers are always free with their advice on such matters. It was clear why, in tough times for taxi drivers, economies on maintenance may sometimes be pursued.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister knows that I admire his versatility—not a talent that I am often able to exercise in this Chamber. On these regulations I speak more from personal experience than from expertise.
	The regulations give greater power to local authorities. I often take an hour or more to drive in the seven miles from Blackheath. My impression is that local authorities are largely responsible for the amount of pollution caused by the traffic congestion due to their own inefficiency. South London seems to be almost cut off. There has been an enormous hole in the A2 for weeks, diverting polluting juggernauts all over the south of London. The New Cross bridge has broken down. A traffic calming measure on the river road is causing vast congestion because of a local authority measure. I took 35 minutes to go 150 yards trying to get into the Blackwall Tunnel the other night. The other day the noble Lord was resisting claims about what was happening on the south side of Westminster Bridge. I hope that he might make representations on these matters, as he agreed to do in that case.
	I have only two specific points. The first relates to Regulation 9, under which the authorised person is to carry out a roadside test immediately, subject to paragraph (3), which may enable him to do so later. As many drivers may be trying to get to an important engagement, should they not also have the option, if they wish, of having the test performed within 24 hours, for example, rather than on the spur of the moment?
	My other point is on Regulation 12 and the issue of fixed penalty notices for idling offences. The regulation provides that a driver may be stopped if there is reasonable cause to believe that he is stationary. According to paragraph (2), if the driver fails to comply, he is subject to a fine and so on. Regulation 14, however, refers to the power to demand from someone,
	"his name and address . . . his date of birth",
	and so on. Surely that power should apply only in the case of Regulation 12(2) where the driver has refused to comply. A local authority official should not be able to ask the person stopped for all these details if that person readily agrees to the inspection.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister and the House will forgive me for speaking once more; I have one question. Buses no longer have conductors. Will buses waiting to load passengers and take fares be subject to these regulations?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it has been a short debate but there is quite a lot to answer. I am grateful to everyone, except the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for supporting the regulations. I shall try to deal with each point in turn.
	The first point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was on the emission test and the possibility of damage to the cam belt. This will be an exhaust test, and clearly there will be a different exhaust test for diesel and for petrol engines. However, local authority staff will be trained to look out for damage to the cam belt. If there is any danger, the test can be deferred and administered at an MOT centre. I think that that also answers a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
	The noble Earl's second point was that the tests are unnecessary because the MOT test is performed every 12 months. Unfortunately, an awful lot of vehicles become more polluting in the time between those 12-month inspections. It is of course a matter of common sense that, under the regulations, local authorities will be targeting polluting vehicles. They will not implement the regulations at random but look for vehicles that are visibly polluting or they suspect from the general condition are likely to be polluting. According to the National Audit Office, the evidence is that despite the MOT test and the addition of emission controls to the MOT test, up to 20 per cent of vehicles are polluting illegally. So there seriously is a problem, and the tests are certainly not unnecessary.
	The noble Earl asked me for the statutory authority for the idling offence. It is Regulation 98 of the construction and use regulations. He also asked me about the Euro-emission standards. They are set standards to which we have signed up, and they define whether there should be an air quality management area. We shall stick to that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me first about the suspicion that the regulations might be a revenue-raising device for local authorities. Alas, the pilot did not show that there was any capability of local authorities making money out of them. She is quite right that the power to stop a vehicle can only be with the police. The local authority will have to make arrangements with the police to stop the vehicle so that local authority staff can carry out the test. However, the grant made available to local authorities for this will include the possibility of payments to the police for that purpose.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked the same question about whether the worst-polluting vehicles do not have MOTs. I address this answer also to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. We estimate that more than 4 per cent of vehicles do not have road fund licences. We can presume that they do not have MOTs either. It is a fair guess that many of them will not have MOTs because they know that they would not pass them and that they are polluting. So her support for the regulations is clearly justified on those grounds.
	Finally, the noble Baroness asked why the regulations apply only to air quality management areas. It is simply because that is where the worst air pollution occurs and where we are more likely to pick up bad polluters. We do not want this to appear as a new type of random checking on all motorists in all places at all times. About 60 local authorities have air quality management areas, some of which are very extensive. The whole of Islington, for example, is an AQMA. So the regulations are not that restrictive, but they are deliberately concentrating on and targeting—as I think we would now say—the worst areas.
	My noble friend Lord Simon asked whether we could apply the regulations in supermarket parking lots. The answer is, no; they can be applied only on the public highway. I am sorry, but I cannot read my notes regarding his second question.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, it was about buses idling because of no conductors.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we would not stop buses with passengers in them anyway; I think that that would be counterproductive. However, if buses or coaches are idling outside bus garages or coach stations then we certainly would be stopping them. That is precisely the type of thing that we are looking to stop.
	I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on Westminster and his point about taxis being maintained in cowboy garages. That is not the subject of these regulations; it is a matter for the Vehicle Inspectorate. However, I shall see to it that his comments are drawn to the attention of the Vehicle Inspectorate.
	I think that I have dealt with most of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in answers to other noble Lords. I think that it was he who made the point about Regulation 12 and details being taken from drivers who agreed to the test. We would not do that. We would take the details only of drivers who refused to switch off their vehicles and to whom we issued a fixed penalty notice. We would take only the details necessary for enforcement.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, if that is so then Regulation 14 should refer to Regulation 12(2) and not 12(1).

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord has not caught us out, and I doubt it, but I shall take that point away and look at it.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I agree with the Minister and with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the problem of vehicles travelling without an MOT is a serious one. However, during our debates on the Transport Act 2000, I tabled an amendment suggesting that we should have an MOT disc alongside the tax disc. Unfortunately, that amendment did not find favour with your Lordships or even with the noble Baroness. Has the Minister reconsidered having an MOT disc on the windscreen to make it easier to detect vehicles travelling without an MOT?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, drivers cannot obtain a tax disc unless they have an MOT. That is the answer to that.

Earl Attlee: Yes, my Lords, but they can obtain a tax disc if they have only a couple of weeks remaining on an MOT certificate. They can then run for 50 weeks without an MOT.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall consider the matter and write to the noble Earl. I believe that I have answered all the questions that were asked.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Electronic Communications) (Child Benefit) Order 2002

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this order will put in place a legal framework that will give child benefit customers the choice of transacting business with the Department for Work and Pensions through a secure Internet-based channel.
	The order is using the affirmative procedure as required by Section 9(4) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 in an order to which Section 9(3) does not apply. It uses the powers contained in Section 8(4)(g) of the 2000 Act and in March 2000 the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, gave an undertaking that,
	"the affirmative procedure would be adopted for new issues on important subjects".—[Official Report, 14/3/00; col. CWH 23.]
	Security has been one of two main considerations in the development of the e-service. Preserving the privacy of customers' personal information and ensuring that benefit is paid only to those who are entitled to receive it will be achieved through adoption of thoroughly tested systems using recognised industry, government and departmental security standards. I am confident that the proposed electronic service will be no less secure than the current service.
	The second main consideration has been that of facility of use. This service will not just be an alternative channel to sit alongside paper and telephone-based services, although these will remain available. The service will be available at all times, often suiting better the disrupted daily clock of the new mother or busy family. It will use modern technology to give greater help to customers when completing forms, often at times when no other help would be available. When necessary, additional data appropriate to customers' individual circumstances will be gathered without the need to await receipt of extra paper forms.
	Once the order comes into force on 28th October—both Houses of Parliament so willing—the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions may approve the detailed method of electronic claim and authorise people to use it. However, before doing so my right honourable friend will obviously want to be satisfied that the new system is robust, secure and reliable, and that it has been thoroughly and successfully tested. If there is any doubt on these matters then he will, as I am sure that the House would expect, take a cautious approach towards introducing the electronic service until he is satisfied.
	Responsibility for the administration of child benefit will transfer to the Inland Revenue in April 2003 and development of the new channel has taken place in close consultation with Inland Revenue colleagues.
	The preamble to the order provides the statutory assurance that the availability of any records created for the use of electronic communications and storage for the purposes provided for by this order will be as satisfactory as in other cases. My department manages data about customers in electronic form in accordance with the Data Protection Act and appropriate security standards. Records created as a result of this new channel will be subject to the same rigorous standards and equally available.
	Articles 3 and 4 provide the legal framework for customers to claim child benefit, provide information and report changes of circumstances electronically.
	Schedule 9C sets out conditions to be met to complete a valid transaction; for example, that the identity of customers must be authenticated in an approved manner. These protect both the customer and my department from misuse of the service, and allow for proof in legal proceedings, that the identity of the sender, the fact of, and time of, delivery and the content of the electronic communication will be presumed to be that recorded on an official computer system.
	I am satisfied that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the order shows touching faith in the reliability of the department's computers which past experience may not wholly justify. The order is limited to claims involving child benefit and guardian's allowance. Are other benefits dealt with in other orders?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords, we are introducing the measure through the order. There is little fraud in regard to this benefit; it is a universal benefit. If this introductory method works, it may or may not be extended to other benefits in future.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I can see no reason to object to the order. It brings child benefit into the age of e-mail. I am glad that it is permissive. The Minister will be familiar with my concern for the rights of illiterates. I shall continue to press a similar concern for the rights of e-illiterates. Only today I discovered that an important brief containing an amendment that I should have moved today is floating somewhere in the e-ether and has not come anywhere near me. As soon as the Minister or her successors forget about the permissive quality, I might start to make some objections. I make none now.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, so would I as I belong to the same generation as the noble Earl. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord and the noble Earl.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Amendment (Intercalating Students) Regulations 2002

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like the previous measure, these regulations are benign and I hope will be welcomed. As I say, this change is entirely beneficial. These regulations are being introduced as part of our ongoing review of student provision within the income-related benefits and to meet a commitment we made when we introduced the Social Security Amendment (Student) Regulations in June 2000.
	At the moment part-time students are eligible to claim social security benefits just like anyone else. But students undertaking a course of full-time study are not able to receive the income-related benefits—income support, jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. As your Lordships know, this is because support for students comes from the student support system, which is designed for their needs, and not the social security system, which is not.
	We made an important change, however, in June 2000. On that occasion we introduced regulations which, among other things, entitled certain full-time students, who had interrupted their course—usually due to illness—with the permission of their educational establishment, to claim jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit as appropriate. The students concerned were those who had had to interrupt their course because they were ill or because they had caring responsibilities, but had recovered from that illness or their caring responsibilities had ceased, and were not able to return to their course immediately.
	However, we limited the period during which these students could claim the relevant benefit until the shorter of either their return to the course or the start of the next academic year. This was to ensure that students returned to their studies as soon as practicable. When we introduced these regulations we agreed to keep them under review, and have done so.
	The National Union of Students, among others, has drawn to our attention the fact that, by restricting these students from claiming beyond the start of the next academic year, hardship may be caused for some who are prevented by their educational institution from returning until later in that year—perhaps because they are not permitted to return until the anniversary of the point at which they interrupted their studies.
	I give an example that I am sure will be familiar to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Someone may have completed two terms of a three-term preliminary course. He or she then becomes ill. Even when they recover, it is not necessarily appropriate to rejoin the non-preliminary course one term or two terms after it has started. It makes sense for them to rejoin the university at the end of the preliminary course and start the non-preliminary course as a beginner for the full term. At the moment that would not be possible under the regulations. However, as a result of the benign changes that we propose, it would. That is why I hope that your Lordships will welcome them.
	We are therefore proposing that, where students are not permitted by the educational institution to return to their course until after the start of the next academic year—it might be two terms after that start—they will be able to claim the relevant income-related benefit until such time as they are permitted to return to their course. However, in order to ensure that they return as soon as possible, the period during which they may claim is limited to one year. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which it would need to go beyond one year.
	As I say, we work closely with colleagues throughout government and elsewhere to ensure that we provide that support in the appropriate way. We believe that the regulations will help those who are recovering from illness and those who have been carers to claim JSA, HB and CTB and that they will not find themselves caught between our regulations and the requirements of the institution. I hope that your Lordships will welcome the concession.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Earl Russell: My Lords, I remember once asking the Minister, as being learned in both points, to act as interpreter between government and educational institutions. I am tempted to think that we see here the first fruits of her acceding to that request.
	I entirely welcome what is in these regulations. Although I have a fair amount to say, it is almost entirely about what is not there because the interface between social security support and education support is a very ill-constructed jigsaw—the sort of thing that used to drive me absolutely screaming mad when I was four.
	The immediate concession is of course entirely welcome. The fact that one often cannot return until the beginning of the next academic year is very like the fact that one cannot introduce a new parliamentary Bill in August; there is a calendar from which we cannot get away. That arrangement produced a period during which people have been without any support at all. The Social Security Advisory Committee in 2000 enunciated the principle that everybody should be eligible to receive either educational support or social security support. That is a good principle but we are still a fairly long way from achieving it.
	The Minister said that she cannot imagine any circumstances in which people might want the provision to extend for more than a year. I can imagine such a situation—I currently have a relevant case before me. The problem is that of intermittent mental illness from which the man made a recovery, relapsed and is now again unfit. That problem exists and will recur.
	The NUS welcomes the consultation that the Government have undertaken with it and so do I. I do so in my capacity as a life member of my college's students' union, so I have a special entitlement to do so.
	Some, but not very many, people will be worse off as a result of the changes. I refer, for example, to students with disabilities who are in halls of residence. It is also good that courses can be recognised as not always being done in strict multiples of one year. In further education in particular that is welcome.
	There is still a problem with postgraduates writing up. The department's concept of education is still based on the notion of the course and assumes that everybody is always engaged in classwork. That is not at all the case with postgraduates who are writing up. The Minister's special skills in communication—she is, if I may say so, doctor utriusque juris; that is, doctor in either law—might enable her to do something rather useful. There is still a problem with lone parents whose entitlement to social security benefit ceases immediately that the child reaches 16. That could, without undue profligacy with Treasury money, be allowed to continue until the parent finishes the course. There are cases of lone parents in the middle of a degree being required to go to work-focused interviews because their youngest child has reached 16. That was not the intention of work-focused interviews and I hope that the arrangement will stop.
	There is also a problem about the time when support stops. Social security support stops under the regulations on 1st September but the terms of many colleges do not begin until quite a bit later than that. Local authorities are by no means always prompt in paying grant cheques. A good deal of my time each year is taken up dealing with that problem. There is apt to be a period of three or four weeks during which the person is absolutely without support, and that is not a good thing.
	I turn to another point that is worthy of some thought. On average rents, as the NUS has found by survey, and on an average loan of £3,815 a year, £29 a week is left over for everything else. The applicable amount under income support would be £42.70, so there is a shortfall of £13.76. That, for most people, is made good by parents; in fact, it is more than made good by parents. The Government rightly concern themselves with the small proportion of children from poorer families who are going to university and they should consider those figures. Frankly, I would advise those who cannot get support from their parents not to go to university at present in their own interest. I should advise them to save up money for several years and to go to university as a mature student. If the Government find that universities are not getting a larger intake of working class students, they might, before they try to cast out the mote in universities' eyes, try to cast out the beam in their own eye.
	I am afraid that I have asked the Minister to do quite a lot of work. She has done a good deal already and she has done that well. I hope that she will be as successful with the rest.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness know more about this matter than I do. I shall detain the House for just a moment or two.
	I have one point which I hope the noble Baroness will clarify. As I understand it, the powers relate largely to lone parents and disabled students who become unwell and interrupt their studies. The Minister is shaking her head; in which case, I misunderstood the situation. It is not clear why in the circumstances that are understandably covered by the regulations, those people may be entitled to jobseeker's allowance, when, presumably, they will eventually resume their studies. It would appear to be more appropriate if they had some benefit other than jobseeker's allowance, which presumably relates to only a short period.

Earl Russell: My Lords, what normally happens if people are away from university for six weeks or so is that they cannot come back and they get a temporary job; they seek jobs, and if they seek jobs they should be allowed the jobseeker's allowance.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, in that case, I need not wait for a reply from the Minister.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is exactly right. The assumption is that JSA will kick in when the student was well but unable to re-enter university. I shook my head because lone parents can now be eligible for benefits in certain circumstances. In these regulations, we are seeking to ensure that we do not artificially time-limit someone's eligibility for JSA in the situation in which one is past the point of the beginning of the academic year and the educational institution said that the person may not return until later in the year. I gave the example of the prelim course.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right: there are still issues involving the need for seamlessness between the support that is offered by my department and that offered by DfES in those circumstances. The noble Earl gave me a shopping list of matters that are not in the regulations, which I need to look at. I shall take that away and come back to him to explain where we are in relation to any of those points and to establish whether I can help. We are dealing for the most part with very small numbers of students in those circumstances. One piece of news that he might find of interest is the fact that any lone parent or any full-time student who, in terms of his or her hours of work, qualifies for WFTC—for a lone parent, that is only 16 hours a week—will be eligible for WFTC. That may be of interest in particular to postgraduates who are writing up, to use the noble Earl's example, where there is some autonomy or flexibility of hours. Anti-social hours in particular may be involved.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I was hoping that the Minister would say that. I thank her very warmly for doing so.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, for lone parents the figure is 16 hours; a single person over 25 would involve the 30-hour rule. None the less, there are opportunities in that regard that have not been available previously, which may help some students in future.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right; I will have to take some of these points away. They are not part of the regulations; they are at the interface of our relationship with the DfES. Many of those issues are currently under discussion. If we have any movement on them, I shall be the happiest person to write to the noble Earl. With that, I ask the House to accept the regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 2002

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved. I shall also speak to the Child Support (Temporary Compensation Payment Scheme) (Modification and Amendment) Regulations 2002.
	The first of those two child support provisions involves the revival of what has become known as the deferred debt scheme.
	This set of regulations will modify subsection (5) of Section 27 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 and Regulation 3 of the Child Support (Temporary Compensation Payment Scheme) Regulations 2000 to revive the deferred debt scheme. The reason is that the scheme was good and benign but was time-limited under the existing legislation until 31st March this year.
	The regulations before us today provide for agreements under the scheme to be made until 31st March 2005. Those agreements will expire by 31st March 2006 and final compensation payments will be made in 2006. There is no significance attached to those dates. We have simply given ourselves plenty of head space.
	I hope that your Lordships will be pleased that the scheme is to be revived. It helps non-resident parents who are faced with substantial arrears, partly through no fault of their own, and provides encouragement for them to keep up regular payments of maintenance.
	Essentially, where the CSA has been responsible for a delay of at least three months, the deferred debt scheme allows the agency to come to an agreement with the non-resident parent. If the non-resident parent agrees to pay at least six months' worth of his arrears, as well as his existing continuing liability, the agency can suspend any collection and enforcement action on the balance of the arrears.
	It is possible that a person will have arrears of, say, £20,000. He may be self-employed and may not enter the system. The regulations will enable us to negotiate with him and, if he pays his current liability reliably for the next 12 months, he need pay only six months' worth of that debt, which may be, say, £5,000 or £3,000. The remainder will be suspended. If that money is paid, the agency may then make a compensatory payment to the parent with care if the money is owed to her or him, as the case may be. Sometimes the money is owed to the Secretary of State and sometimes to the parent with care. As a result, if the non-resident parent keeps to his agreement, he will cease to be liable for the remaining arrears. However, if he defaults, the remaining arrears will remain payable.
	The intention behind the regulations is to ensure that where the agency has been in part responsible for the delay, non-resident parents do not find themselves with a hill to climb that they cannot manage. In this way, we hope that we may get them into the habit of paying regular maintenance. It is good for the child; it is good for the parent with care, who will receive the remainder of the arrears; and I hope that, as a result, we shall have brought someone out of the shadows. The regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	I turn to the Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 2002. This order has been made by the Lord Chancellor under the power in subsections (1) and (7) of Section 45 of the Child Support Act 1991. It has been made by the Lord Chancellor because it relates to the family courts. However, it mainly covers child support policy, which, as noble Lords will be aware, is my responsibility. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor has agreed that it is sensible to debate this order alongside the amending child support regulations.
	Appeals against child support decisions are made under Section 20 of the Child Support Act 1991. Such appeals are normally determined by an appeal tribunal established under the Social Security Act 1998. But appeals on the ground of disputed parentage are routed to a court instead of an appeal tribunal by the Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 1993.
	Of course, declarations of parentage have a wider legal application beyond child support. They are binding, for example, in immigration and inheritance disputes in the same way as they are binding on child support issues. Therefore, we believe that it is sensible to import the existing powers to go to the courts into the new child support regulations. As a result, this will be binding on the agency.
	A non-resident parent can declare and reply directly to the court at any time. Such a declaration is then binding on the CSA. If the person in question is found not to be the parent of the child, any child support maintenance that he may already have paid will be refunded in full by the agency. As I said, the question is simply where the appeal goes. We are suggesting that it is appropriate that it continues to go via the court simply because the declaration of parentage has implications which go wider than child support.
	I could elaborate but I do not believe that I need to do so unless your Lordships wish to push me on any aspect of the order. It is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. So far as concerns the Child Support (Temporary Compensation Payment Scheme) (Modification and Amendment) Regulations 2002, perhaps I may ensure that I understand what the noble Baroness has just said. The scheme provides that, in cases where there has been a delay of more than six months in making a maintenance assessment and where at least three months of the delay was due to the Child Support Agency, the absent parent may be allowed to pay only the last six months' worth of the arrears of child support maintenance that has accrued.
	I am not absolutely clear whether that concession means that the parent with care will receive any less than he would otherwise have done or whether the difference is made up by the taxpayer. That is essentially the point which has given me some cause for concern.
	I also understand that the arrears are suspended if the individual concerned agrees to pay the future charges regularly. But is it the case that that suspension will continue indefinitely, even though the individual continues to pay on a regular basis? Is there a time limit?
	So far as concerns the order, as I understand it, effectively it perpetuates the existing situation introduced by Statutory Instrument 9396 and maintains the position that decisions on parentage should be decided by the courts rather than by a tribunal. That seems to me eminently sensible. Indeed, it has some topical interest in that it relates to a case which hit the headlines this morning. It is obviously a decision that should be made by a court. Therefore, I have no reason to object to what is proposed.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, have no objection either to the order or the regulations. The temporary compensation scheme has always been a sensible approach to a problem which has been capable of turning into an avalanche falling on to the head of a parent whose assessment has been delayed. Its continuation is clearly necessary because of the delay in the introduction of the new Act. I believe, first, that that delay is no fault of the Minister. Secondly, in the course of proceedings on the Tax Credits Bill we have already had our pound of flesh. I do not believe that we are entitled to a second and I shall not ask for one.
	With regard to the jurisdiction of courts, I believe that clearly it is sensible that questions of paternity, which have wide ramifications and raise rather complicated questions about rules of evidence, should go to the courts. Like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I believe that that case appears a great deal stronger today than it did yesterday.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response. I believe that the precise questions to which I need to return are those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, concerning the parent with care and her position under the regulations. Your Lordships will forgive me if I use gendered language in relation to this matter.
	The parent with care would not receive any less, although she may well receive it later. Let us assume that a person is self-employed. He has arrears of £10,000. As a result, he has been ducking and weaving. He may still be seeing the child but not paying any money. He is liable for £30 a week, but he regards the £10,000 as too much to pay and therefore continues to operate in the shadows.
	We may be able to come to an agreement with him whereby he pays the £30 a week. He pays off six months' worth of arrears, which, although I am unable to work it out, may amount to approximately £1,500. He pays regularly over the next 12 months and also, over that period, pays back six months' worth of the arrears. If he does that satisfactorily for 12 months, those arrears will then be suspended indefinitely and he will not have to pay any more. However, if, in the process, he falters, the arrears can still come back into play.
	As for the parent with care, at the end of 12 months some of the £10,000 which is owed in arrears may be owed to the Secretary of State if the individual is receiving benefit. Some of it may be owed to the parent if she has entered work. If it is owed to the Secretary of State, it is put aside. If it is owed to the parent, the taxpayer will make up the difference. Therefore, the parent recovers the money that would have been paid because we accept that, to a degree, the agency was culpable in not getting the money to her earlier. For our purposes, the important point is that that arrangement has proved successful in bringing people out of the shadows and into paying maintenance reliably in future, thus reducing future burdens on taxpayers to support parents on benefit.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support (Temporary Compensation Payment Scheme) (Modification and Amendment) Regulations 2002

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Contracting Out (Functions of Local Authorities: Income-Related Benefits) Order 2002

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the responsibility for administering housing benefit, council tax benefit and discretionary housing payments rests with local authorities. Local authorities can already contract out many aspects of that work.
	However, there are important functions which cannot be carried out. Contractors or agency staff cannot at present make the decision which determines entitlement to benefit. They can make recommendations, but an officer directly employed by the local authority must make the final decision. Neither can contractors or agency staff make decisions on the award of discretionary housing payments.
	Checking the work done by the contractor or agency staff and making a benefit decision places a large burden on local authorities. It involves unnecessary and expensive double handling. Everything has to be done twice. We want to see improvements in benefits administration and we hope that the order, which is warmly welcomed by local authorities, will help us to do so.
	The provisions are as follows. First, the order gives local authorities a power to authorise other people to undertake functions relating to housing benefit, council tax benefit and discretionary housing payments that at present only the local authority can undertake. That will enable contractors and agency staff to undertake those functions in so far as the local authority authorises them to do so. I refer to Article 3(1).
	Secondly, it specifies the functions which the local authorities will not be allowed to authorise other people to undertake. Those are mainly areas which, because of subsidy or fraud implications, we believe should be reserved for the local authority to make the decision. I refer to Article 3(2). Thirdly, it imposes a condition that the authorised person passes a daily random sample of cases—10 per cent—to the local authority to enable the local authority to check the quality of the work. I refer to Article 4.
	That requirement will apply only to people employing at least one other person; that is, only the contractor, not agency staff. I refer to Article 4(5). That is because local authorities have the same day-to-day control over agency staff as they do over their own employees. Finally, it provides that a local authority cannot give an authorisation to a person who has a financial interest in the outcome of a claim, or to whom rent is payable for a dwelling in respect of which a claim is made, to avoid any possible conflict of interest. I refer to Article 5.
	I stress to your Lordships that the order does not remove any accountability from local authorities. They retain full responsibility, as now, for all housing benefit and council tax benefit expenditure. They are expected to have proper controls and checks in place in order to ensure that the contractors are doing the work to an acceptable standard. In addition, authorities will remain subject to an independent check by external audit and by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. We see an increased role for the BFI to ensure that that is done.
	I believe that the order will enable local authorities which use or want to use contractors or agency staff to have less of an administrative burden. We shall issue guidance to local authorities to ensure that they have strong contract management in place when coming to such arrangements. There may be other issues we want to include in guidance. However, this is a discretionary and permissive power for local authorities which already contract out their work to be able no longer to have to do the same work twice over. There are proper sample quality controls in place. There will be codes of guidance to local authorities after consultation with them. I hope that, as a result of that, your Lordships will accept the order. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, having heard the explanation from the Minister, I have doubts about the order. The noble Baroness will know that I have always been somewhat concerned about the way in which housing benefit is administered by local authorities. However, as I understand it, the order will now enable them to contract out some of the responsibility for administering housing benefit, other housing payments, and so forth. Apparently, the way in which the contractor carries out the work will be checked by taking a random sample of 10 per cent of cases. Why do the local authorities need to contract out? Why should not the local authority carry out the responsibilities Parliament has given to them.
	Perhaps I may make another point. We know that such work involves confidential information. However, is that information, which presumably may be relevant to some of the decisions to be made by the contractors, to be passed on to them? That issue has been raised on previous occasions and gives cause for concern. Overall I am not clear as to whether this is a complete innovation or whether it has been done before. If it is an innovation, have we given sufficient consideration to the problems which may arise?
	Finally, the noble Baroness stated that the sampling does not apply to people who do not have someone else working for them. That is not the same as the council having an employee, with all the usual requirements as regards national insurance contributions, and so forth. Should not an individual sub-contractor be subject to the same somewhat inadequate provisions for random sampling?

Earl Russell: My Lords, it seems to me that the order is a necessary consequence of the introduction of best value. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would not have great difficulty in persuading me that we might perhaps have given more thought to the concept of best value. However, that is now with us, and while it is with us, the order must be with us also. The debate on best value has taken place. The time to have it again has not yet come. In the mean time, I am happy to accept the order.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for his response. He will know that at present something like 25 local authorities contract out their housing benefit administration to such companies as CSL, Capita, EDS, IT Net, and so on. The noble Lord will recall that there have indeed been problems with Hackney, and so forth, where administration has had to come back in-house.
	At present, local authorities do not have the discretion to contract out all aspects of housing benefit administration—only some aspects. We are giving them a permissive power to contract out. However, as local authorities they still remain legally responsible for the work done for them. In housing benefit administration, nothing in the order jeopardises the rights of an individual to a tribunal procedure recently introduced for housing benefit circumstances.
	As regards sample, agency staff are in the same position as a local authority. They are under the direct control of the local authority. Therefore, contracting out in that sense does not apply. By contracting out we mean an independent company as opposed to an individual coming in to cover sickness, maternity, and so forth. However, if I have misunderstood the point made by the noble Lord, perhaps he will come back to me.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I do not see why a so-called individual sub-contractor should not be employed by the council. Why should we suddenly give local authorities that additional discretion?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, individual agency staff are effectively employed by the local authority for those purposes and are subject to local authority control and supervision. That perhaps meets the point. The noble Lord pressed me on confidentiality. Local authorities will be told that adequate safeguards must be put in place to meet data protection requirements. The situation is no different from that of banks, building societies and the like. In dealing with the Social Security Fraud Act we discussed fully the security which applies not just to local authority staff but to contracting out. The same duty of care applies. Obviously, there will be circumstances within a local authority or outside where that slips up. I have no reason to think that that difference will occur between contracting out and non-contracting out because the Data Protection Act applies in both cases.
	Finally, I assure the House that in my view the provisions of the order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

State Pension Credit Regulations 2002

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the State Pension Credit Regulations 2002 laid before the House on 26th June be approved.
	I have a fairly full description of what the regulations do. However, I am mindful that, given that the first order of the day went well past its time, I do not want to trespass too largely on your Lordships' patience. I shall make two points. Perhaps I should then respond to questions rather than describe each of the regulations. Your Lordships, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will have recently taken part in the Bill. I am sure that every item is engraved on the noble Lord's memory.
	The draft regulations cover the five main issues associated with pension credit: first, people not in Great Britain—the habitual residence questions; secondly, the calculation of the guarantee credit; thirdly, the assessment of income and capital; fourthly, the savings credit; and, finally, the assessed income period. They are full regulations, primarily because they incorporate rather than merely cross-refer to the core income support regulations of 1987. It seemed more sensible to reincorporate those old regulations into this so that there is, as it were, a clean read. We thought that that would be more helpful and transparent. For example, Regulation 22 on the diminishing notional capital rule is unchanged from the Income Support Rules of 1987.
	That is what the regulations cover. I have a fairly full description of them because we had originally allowed ourselves 20 minutes for the discussion. It may be that it would be more helpful if I simply sat down at this point and sought to respond to questions. If your Lordships wish, I should be happy to try to describe in greater detail what the regulations do, but your Lordships may feel that having recently passed the Bill and having had, I hope, a helpful explanatory memorandum, that is not necessary. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, this is an absolutely marvellous opportunity to make another Second Reading speech on the State Pension Credit Act 2002. However, I think that it is true to say that while a number of noble Lords have arrived for a subsequent debate, those involved in this debate are probably those who might usually be described as "the usual suspects". We are not unfamiliar with this matter, which, as the noble Baroness has rightly pointed out, we have only recently discussed.
	It is also right that the Minister's virtue should be rewarded, in the sense that during the passage of the Bill she—I think unusually—provided draft regulations in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading and so on, which cover much of what we have in the order. Therefore, it is not unfamiliar to us. So far as one can see, it does not contain any shocks.
	Perhaps I may, therefore, just ask one or two questions. The first is a question to which I ought to know the answer and do not. In the order it says, as is normal, that the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee has not been taken because the Bill has been passed only a short time before. I am not absolutely clear whether the Social Security Advisory Committee expresses a view ahead of a Bill. Does it have an opportunity to make any comment after the Bill is passed and after it has seen these regulations, which it has not previously seen? It seems rather unfortunate that when it may have some comments on the regulations it is precluded from so doing. Probably the normal case is that the initial regulations come out within the six-month period.
	Secondly, the orders cover a number of points with regard to absence overseas and whether individuals should or should not be allowed to continue to receive state pension credit when they are overseas. The order sets out the period over which they continue to receive the benefit, although that is a fairly tight limit—in some cases four weeks and in other cases eight weeks. It is particularly relevant in the context of the orders, which are concerned with what are described as "patients", that is to say, people who go overseas to receive medical treatment.
	My impression is that the individuals concerned only continue to receive the state pension credit if they go overseas for medical treatment paid for by the NHS. If that is true it seems to me quite wrong because the individual who pays has not only paid all the normal contributions for National Health Service treatment but has in addition paid for his own treatment, thereby relieving the state of that cost. Consequently, it does not seem to me that there should be a differentiation between people who go overseas for medical treatment under the NHS and those who go overseas for medical treatment privately. No doubt the Minister can respond to that and we can then consider whether we need to go further.
	The only other point which one might consider is the question of the definition of income. In particular, the orders are concerned with the rate of return which is deemed to be received on capital. The Minister anticipates what I am going to say. The rate which is specified in the order would seem to imply a rate, once the initial tranche of capital has been taken into account, of something over 10 per cent. If the noble Baroness can tell me where I can invest money at 10 per cent at the moment I should be happy to hear from her. So will many other people suffering from the situation on the Stock Market.
	The usual Treasury argument is, "Well, you must take the average rate of return, allowing for the fact that the first tranche of capital is not taken into account". It is the marginal rate which is relevant. Even if one were to take the average rate, it is still significantly higher than the rate one is likely to receive on risk-free investments at the present time. What I am really saying is that it does not seem to me that the rate which is set is as favourable or as sensible as it ought to be. The question then is whether there are sufficient powers to alter that rate in future.
	Those are my main points. I shall not go over the fascinating aspects that we discussed on the recent passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, particular with regard to polygamy and other favourite subjects of the noble Baroness. I look forward to hearing her specific answers to those points.

Earl Russell: My Lords, there are a number of items in the regulations that I welcome. I welcome the fact that refugees and those given exceptional leave to remain are exempt from the habitual residence regulations. I also welcome several items which my noble friend Lady Barker asked for during the passage of the Bill. In the process, I thank my noble friend for burning the midnight oil preparing a brief for me on the subject.
	I welcome the disregard for royalties and income from public lending rights and the 13 weeks' extension for hospital downrating. I mention one technical problem about that aspect. Re-admission within 28 days is counted as a continuous stay in hospital. That raises the question, what if the re-admission is because of an inappropriate discharge? That, I know, is more a matter for the Department of Health than for the noble Baroness. I hope that they might possibly consult each other about the matter.
	Among the various allowances dealt with there are various ones reserved for the care of children. There is no mention of adoption allowances. That may need attention after the Adoption and Children Bill has finished its passage. The allowance for aids and adaptations is welcome. But it is not clear whether it extends beyond those registered disabled to those who are victims of stroke or heart disease and are not registered disabled.
	I declare an interest. My mother-in-law, although not on benefits, is aged 92 and suffering from angina. She has had to have a stairlift installed, which was quite remarkably expensive. People could really be in need of help for such an item. Perhaps the department might at some future date look at that matter.
	My only other question of concern—and this has been a question throughout the Bill—is the complexity of the pension credit system. The DSS says that it will attempt to do the calculation for everyone, which is generous and warm-hearted of it. But it prevents people from being in a position to work out their own entitlement. If we are being told that we should make provision for our own retirement, and do so responsibly, it is a little easier if one knows what one is entitled to. That point might be worth some thought.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the brevity with which your Lordships have responded. It is pleasing that we have all resisted the temptation to make speeches suitable for Second Reading, Third Reading or any other Reading. I shall try to deal with the specific points that have been made.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about the Social Security Advisory Committee. It can indeed comment; its advice was sought; and we have had the benefit of that advice. The noble Lord will know that the assumption concerning the sixth-month rule—although the Social Security Advisory Committee is not officially required to be consulted within six months of a Bill's passage—is that Parliament has clearly expressed its view when discussing the Bill. The job of the Social Security Advisory Committee is normally to advise the Secretary of State after that six- month period, when Parliament's intention may be more remote from what has since happened. But in this case, as I said, the Social Security Advisory Committee engaged in policy discussions on the matter, so that point is met.
	On the question about overseas provisions, our views may be irreconcilable. The noble Lord's description of the situation was correct: medical treatment paid for by the NHS falls under the regulation. For anyone else, it is a matter of volition or choice to decide to seek medical treatment abroad and to pay for it. We have sought legal advice, and I understand there to be no legal difficulties with the provision. I suspect that whether the noble Lord considers that approach to be desirable depends on his views about private medical treatment, which we may not share.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, that seems very unfair. Given the income provisions of the tax credit, there will be few cases. People who have contributed towards the National Health Service and who are now relieving the NHS and the United Kingdom of that responsibility will be penalised. Someone treated on the NHS, to which everyone has contributed, will gain relief, whereas someone being treated privately will not. That is unfair.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understand that that is what the noble Lord believes, but that is no different in principle from the fact that people do not receive tax relief on contributions to medical insurance policies, for example, or anything of that sort. People make that choice.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, it is going further than that.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, but my point is that if people pay for private medicine they make that choice. Whether or not they relieve the NHS of part of its responsibility has not been—certainly under this administration—a consideration affecting tax and fiscal policies. I know that the noble Lord disagrees with me on that, but that is entirely consistent with our tax treatment of the costs of medical treatment incurred on a private basis.
	Finally, the noble Lord asked me about the definition of income shown on capital. He knows as well as I that if someone had capital of £12,000, the effective rate attributed to his capital would be 5.2 per cent average. That is because, when we consulted with Age Concern and other organisations, they preferred us to set a band of capital—£6,000—that was exempt. As a result, 85 per cent of all pensioners, who have savings of less than £6,000—will have no notional rate of return attributed to their capital. The notional rate kicks in above £6,000.
	It is entirely reasonable that we should decide that the average should be, as it were, loaded on those with higher capital to benefit those with more modest capital. That was the advice offered to us by Age Concern, and that is exactly the policy that the Government have followed. Again, I know that we disagree on that, but that is what it is.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, when discussions took place, did Age Concern know what rate would be fixed?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I doubt that it knew what would be the specific rate. It would have known that, given the structure of pension credit, any abatement on the first £6,000 would have to be recovered by increasing the rate that applied above £6,000. That was always part of the discussions, and that is what Age Concern signed up to, I understand. Of course, if I have misled the noble Lord in any respect, I shall write to him.
	I should add that that is effectively half the rate of the existing minimum guarantee—which in turn follows previous income support rates for capital treatment. So we have got rid of the capital ceiling. As a result, it is reasonable to have a fresh look at how we appraise the notional return on capital. As I said, pensioners did not want each individual item to be assessed; they wanted a notional rate, which is what we have provided.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about adoption allowances. It may be good news for him that nothing related to children is relevant to pension credit; it is disregarded for those purposes. Any income from adoption allowances would not cut into entitlement to pension credit. He asked what provision is made when readmission to hospital is deemed to be the result of inappropriate discharge. The reasons for admission or discharge are not relevant to social security legislation. If there is a perceived problem in that regard, it is a matter for the Department of Health. Whether discharge was inappropriate would not determine the outcome of pension credit.
	The noble Earl also asked about housing costs and respite care. That is dealt with in Schedule II at paragraph 4(9), which allows housing costs of people who are temporarily in care homes to be met, subject to a limit of 52 weeks, which I think covers the examples that he gave. Finally, he asked for a definition of a disabled person at Schedule 2(12)(2)(k). It is simply taken over from definitions under income support. That is an incorporation; there is no change; existing policy will continue.
	I hope that that has met the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If your Lordships will agree, given the lateness of the hour, I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

House again in Committee.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 102:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
	"DISAPPLICATION OF RIOT (DAMAGES) ACT 1886 (C. 38)
	The provisions of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 (c. 38) shall not apply in respect of any damage caused to—
	(a) an accommodation centre, or any property therein;
	(b) a removal centre (as defined in section 147 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33)), or any property therein."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I take this amendment seriously, as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, during the dinner break. I think that I spotted him passing on my concerns to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, so the Government are aware of my approach to the amendment.
	The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that if there were a repeat of the Yarl's Wood disaster in respect of either an accommodation centre or a removal centre, the provisions of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 would not apply in respect of any damage caused. The Committee will recall the appalling consequences of the fire at Yarl's Wood earlier this year. In the aftermath of that fire, the insurers who act for the company that runs Yarl's Wood made a claim against the Bedfordshire Police Authority for almost £100 million. They are suing to recover what they have paid out.
	As I understand it, the provisions of that Act apply even when there has been no negligence or default on the part of the police. The Act provides that where a police authority declares under the terms of the Public Order Act 1986 that a riot has taken place, police authorities become liable to pay for any damages to buildings and their contents arising through riots.
	My question is: what will happen if there is a fire at an accommodation or removal centre in future? Will insurers be unwilling to cover renewals of existing policies in respect of removal centres? Are the Government destined to become the insurer of last resort?
	In a debate in another place, my honourable friend Peter Luff voiced his concerns about those matters. He has a particular interest in the proposal to build an accommodation centre in his constituency. He asked:
	"Is it true that some police authorities have declined to police those centres, or to provide the protection necessary? Who will be liable if there is a fire, such as that at Yarl's Wood? Who will insure this centre in the event of a similar disturbance? Is it not time to re-examine the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, which I think puts the responsibility for damage on the police".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/02; col. 493-4.]
	When the Police Reform Bill was debated in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, tried to solve the problem by repealing Section 38 of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 in toto. That would have had an unfortunate and unwelcome consequence, although I recognise that the noble Lord acted throughout from good intentions. The amendments were not pursued, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, then a Minister at the Home Office stated:
	"The Government are pursuing an urgent review of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. When we have pursued our urgent review, we shall report back to Parliament. However, I cannot guarantee that that will be in time for Report stage".—[Official Report, 12/3/02; col. 805.]
	The review was not completed in time for our Report stage, and today, as the Report stage of that Bill begins in another place, we are still waiting for the results of that urgent review.
	I am being helpful to the House and to the Government. We need wait no longer. My solution, which would stop the problem recurring, is simple and timely. We should stop the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 from applying in the case of accommodation and removal centres. That can be achieved through this simple amendment to the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: We welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, has proposed the amendment. It highlights something that has, since the Yarl's Wood fire, become a problem. We regard it as a probing amendment, tabled to let us see what the Government will do about the problem. We look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Lord Avebury: On the last occasion I inquired, the Government said that they had to wait until insurance contracts relating to other removal centres came up before they could see what the position was on premiums. Has the Minister anything further to tell us about that? It is obvious that the events at Yarl's Wood must have had a knock-on effect on the attitude of insurers to the premiums that they would charge for detention centres and, further, for PFI prisons, which, I understand, are privately insured.
	The outcome of the urgent review that the noble Baroness mentioned is important, not just for the detention centres but for every other PFI contract relating to a location where such events might—even remotely—be possible. The repercussions for government spending are so enormous that, I am sure, the Government must have considered the matter urgently. They should produce some figures. If they cannot deal with the questions about the urgent review, they should at least say what happened when other contracts came up for renewal.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment is certainly timely, and, in that sense, it is useful. It disinters an important issue. I do not claim that I can answer all the questions that have been posed in our short debate, but I recognise the great importance of that debate. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly asked some hard questions about where this matter might leave us with other projects. In truth, the matter will, in the end, have to be left to the outcome of the review undertaken following the events at Yarl's Wood.
	We must be clear about what the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 provides for. It provides for compensation to be paid from the local police fund under certain circumstances for losses incurred through injury, destruction of premises or stealing or destruction of the contents of those premises by any person involved in a riot. The Act also allows for insurance claims agreed to by insurance companies and accepted by the police authority to be refunded to the insurance company by the local police authority.
	The subject has been brought into focus by the Yarl's Wood case and the claim against Bedfordshire police. The Government are undertaking a fundamental and urgent review of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 because of the many implications and ramifications that flow from it. I make it plain again that, when we have completed that review, we will report fully to Parliament. I cannot, at this stage, say whether any conclusions will be reached about the future of the Act within the timetable for the Bill. All three noble Lords who contributed to our discussion should understand exactly why that is. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, put his finger on it when he said that it was a complex subject. It seems unlikely that we will be able to conclude that review within the timetable for the Bill.
	We understand entirely the concern felt by the Bedfordshire Police Authority and all other police authorities, which act in good faith to quell disorder wherever it occurs but still suffer financial penalties. At the same time, we must weigh the position of those who have insurance and those who do not. That is an important consideration; some authorities are, effectively, self-insured. We must also consider the overall impact of removing the protection afforded by the Riot (Damages) Act, as proposed in the noble Baroness's amendment.
	The Home Secretary made the Government's position on Yarl's Wood clear on 25th February in his Statement about the riots and the insurers' claim against Bedfordshire police. The claim being made by the insurers is, unquestionably, way beyond the resources of the Bedfordshire police, and, as a responsible government, we intend to take whatever advice is necessary and work with the police to protect their interests and those of the people whom they serve in Bedfordshire.
	Although the amendment is timely, it is also difficult for us to consider in the context of this Bill. I suggest to the noble Baroness that although this is an opportunity for her to test the Government's resolve, it is perhaps not the best occasion on which to do so. I suggest that we should take more time and have more mature reflection on the consequences of this claim and its wider, broader and deeper implications.
	I realise that that does not satisfy the noble Baroness in terms of answering all her questions. I fully recognise that they are very important, but I suggest that in view of those comments she might find it within herself to withdraw her amendment today.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As always, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part in this short debate as we canter towards the end of a long day. I thank the Minister for giving no answers to a series of questions. He did strive to give as many answers as he could manage not to; it might help if I were to get all my negatives together! The Minister referred to the fact that this is disinterring an important issue. My golly, this is an important issue which is well and alive to people in Yarl's Wood! Of course, I do not seek to make my measure retrospective. I fully appreciate the complexities of dealing with matters retrospectively, with all the legal consequences that follow. It is a live issue and a future one for the accommodation and removal centres which are at the core of this part of the Bill.
	The Minister said that he could not answer the questions posed in this short debate. I do not believe that any of them came as a surprise to him as they were raised in debate in another place, both in Westminster Hall and in the Chamber, and in a series of Questions for Written Answer. I have not posed any matter out of the blue.
	The Minister disappointed me when he was unable to say whether a conclusion would be reached on an urgent review by the end of discussions on the Bill. That is where my matter of principle arises. If the Government give a commitment to carry out an urgent review on such a vital matter, there are times when they have to have their resolve tested. The Minister was kind enough to say in the first sentence of his remarks that the debate was timely and useful. I believe that this is the time when a timely and useful amendment needs to be put to the Committee. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 102) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 102.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 15 [Support for destitute asylum-seeker]:

Lord Greaves: moved Amendment No. 103:
	Page 9, line 11, after "accommodation" insert "in accordance with the principle of family unity"

Lord Greaves: Amendment No. 103 seeks to put on the face of the Bill the principle and important practice that families in accommodation centres should not be split up, that children should not be split from their parents and that wives and husbands should not be split up.
	The Minister spoke earlier about the arrangements the Government propose to make in accommodation centres and their intention to provide family units. That is certainly a welcome step forward. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent families from being split, either on the same site or on different sites. This probing amendment is designed to discover what guarantees the Government can give that families will not be split in this way. This is on the basis of the principle set out in Preamble B of the 1951 convention which, among other things, recommends governments to ensure that the unity of a refugee's family is maintained.
	It will be interesting to know the Government's thinking in regard to the proportion of families they expect to be housed in accommodation centres. Single males make up more than 80 per cent of asylum seekers; single women, families of various kinds and single children make up under 20 per cent. So families make up a small proportion of the total.
	Much of the public discussion in regard to accommodation centres has centred around the position of children and families in relation to their education and so on. The impression has been given that there may be a tendency to put a higher proportion of families in accommodation centres than asylum seekers in general. Do the Government believe that the proportion of families in any given accommodation centre at any given time is likely to be 20 per cent? Will it be less than that or might it be 30 or 40 per cent? It will be interesting to know the Government's view on this issue. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: I gladly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, not only because I believe in family unity but because I would not like it to be thought that it is only the Liberal Democrats who believe in family unity.

Lord Filkin: I shall be brief because the position has been made clear in the debates on earlier clauses. I want to make it absolutely clear that families placed in an accommodation centre will remain together. The residential units they occupy will allow for this. The precise nature of the residential units will be a matter for those who design the accommodation but it will accord to this general principle.
	I do not think that a statutory reference is necessary or appropriate. For example, if a family arrives consisting of two parents, a young child and the older brother who may be, say, aged 25, naturally the parents and the young child would be placed together in the same unit but it might be more sensible for the 25 year-old, who would most probably be claiming asylum in his own right, to be placed in a separate unit. We would need to consider each case on its merits. But there is no disagreement with the purpose behind the amendment.
	I just point to the existing situation in respect of removal centres and NASS accommodation where the same clear principle applies but without any statutory reference to family unity. I am not aware that there have been any suggestions that this principle has been compromised in those types of establishments.
	I was asked what we thought would be the mix of families. It is a long way off. We are aware that it will be some time before the accommodation will be finalised. Therefore, at this stage I have nothing further to add on that but respectfully suggest that the amendment may be withdrawn.

Lord Avebury: Surely the Minister can at least give the figures for the number of families who apply for asylum at present compared with the number of single men. My noble friend thought the figure to be about 80 per cent single men and 20 per cent families. Is that confirmed by the Government? Would not it be logical, therefore, for the accommodation in the centres to conform with those numbers? Unless there is a radical change in the mix of asylum seekers between now and the date when the button has to be pushed for construction, would the Government have regard to the numbers in the asylum population in the past year or two?

Lord Hylton: When the Minister replies, can he say what principle of selection will apply to the centres, given that the great majority of asylum applicants will continue to be dispersed, as occurs at present?

Lord Filkin: I stand by my original indication that the point at which we finalise the accommodation and put families in it is some time away. As a rough and ready figure, about 40 per cent of the residents—counting every soul as one—might be part of a family compared with 60 per cent who are not. The 20 per cent figure for families relates to cases: one family equals one case. But those are only rough and ready figures at this stage for reasons the Committee will understand.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for that information and for placing firmly on the record that families will not be split. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 104:
	Page 9, line 12, after "centre" insert "for a maximum period of ten weeks, save in exceptional circumstances"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The effect of Amendment No. 104 is to say that the Secretary of State can make provision for a person to stay at an accommodation centre for a maximum period of 10 weeks.
	The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to ensure that the application for asylum made by a person who is required by the Secretary of State to be resident in an accommodation centre is processed within that period of 10 weeks. I believe it is vital that the process of deciding applications is as swift as possible, as I have commented previously. This is one piece of the jigsaw puzzle which we believe, if properly completed, would ensure that we have a one-stop shop in which all can have confidence rather than the half built affair proposed at present by the Government.
	If there is no incentive on the face of the Bill—having a proper target as a time limit—the likelihood is that time will drift and people will spend far too long in the centres. My amendment would ensure that the Home Office reacts with speed and efficiency.
	I have sought to be practical. I have included in the amendment the recognition that there may indeed be exceptional circumstances which means that the claim cannot be processed within the time limit of 10 weeks. Perhaps the Home Office may have asked for documentation in a timely manner; they may have asked for documentation from another country and the other country fails to respond in the required time. That, of course, might be an exceptional circumstance.
	The Government are not averse to setting time limits in other areas. The time limit in juvenile courts for the period between arrest and disposal of the case is an example in point. The Minister in the other place commented that this could not be a parallel because asylum claims entail overseas inquiries. Of course, my caveat of having the "exceptional circumstances" rider in the amendment would deal with that problem.
	The Government have said that they expect six months to be the maximum time spent by most people in accommodation centres. That really is far too long. It is important that the claims are processed more rapidly than that if we are to be fair to the asylum seekers who need to know the result quickly. We need to be able to show people overseas that if they come to this country, they can expect a speedy and fair resolution of their claim.
	By allowing the decision making to drift to a six-month limit the Government are also accepting that they will not process more than 6,000 of the 80,000 claims a year in accommodation centres. That is far too small a proportion even for what is to be a trial; it will leave the great majority still to face dispersal around the country, with all the problems that that causes for them. By accepting my amendment, the Government would set the objective of processing about 16,000 applications a year in accommodation centres rather than the paltry 6,000 that obtains at present. That would be a better target for all concerned. I beg to move.

Lord Avebury: Can the Minister tell me whether I am right in thinking that the target of two months for the initial decision and a total of six months for the whole process was originally contained in the White Paper, Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum? If that is the case, is it not curious that the accommodation centres that are designed to speed up the whole process still maintain the same time limit? Surely the whole point of the exercise is to try to shorten the time-scale. I entirely agree with the thrust of the noble Baroness's amendment, although the 10-week period that she has allowed is perhaps a little too strict.
	In his letter to me of 8th July, the Minister pointed out that,
	"53 per cent of applications received in the period April to December 2001, inclusive, had initial decisions reached and served within two months . . . [and] that 43 per cent of appeals received in the period April to December 2001, inclusive, were processed through both tiers of the IAA within 17 weeks".
	So we are a long way off meeting the target suggested by the noble Baroness. While I hope that the accommodation will enable the process to be speeded up, I believe that a little more latitude should be allowed the Government. But I agree in principle with the idea put forward by the noble Baroness; namely, that there should be some form of time limit in the Bill.

Baroness Whitaker: I am not sure whether I am in support of the amendment. That may depend on the response given by my noble friend the Minister. It is slightly tied in with the position of children. Although it is the subject of later amendments, it seems to me that six months is too long in the life of a child, especially if he is attending school inside the accommodation centre. I am talking about children who are already deprived of their rights under the UN convention because of the UK Government's reservations. If my noble friend were able to give some assurance that families with children would be fast tracked so that a shorter period than six months would apply—indeed, 10 weeks would be excellent, but even three months would be better—I would not need to support the amendment.

Lord Greaves: I shall speak to the three amendments included in this grouping that are tabled in my name, and those of my noble friends Lord Russell and Lord Dholakia. I refer to Amendments Nos. 107B, 111A and 111B. We are seeking to extend the time limit, which the noble Baroness's amendment sets at 10 weeks, to six months. The three amendments simply place the six months' limit in different parts in the Bill: in regard to the power to provide accommodation; in regard to the requirement on asylum seekers to reside in that accommodation; and to prevent them being kept in there after six months.
	This matter was debated at great length in another place. A number of assurances were given by the Government as to their intentions and wishes, which are also set out in the Minister's letter to my noble friend Lord Avebury, to which he referred. But nothing has yet been done to set down in tablets of stone—in legislation or anywhere else—any guarantees that the six-month limit will be kept to.
	There is a general view that six months is the absolute limit for the stay in an accommodation centre. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, for young children receiving an education, six months in a centre is too long a period. We are not suggesting that a period of six months should be the norm. We are suggesting that it should be the absolute limit.
	Indeed, the Home Secretary himself is reported as saying in another place on 7th February:
	"God forbid that anyone should be in an accommodation centre for six months".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/02; col. 1037.]
	Clearly, some people will be there for six months, whatever God may or may not say, and we must hope that they are very few.
	There are good reasons why in some cases it may not be possible to process claims fully through both the initial stage and the appeal stage in less than that time. The "two plus four" formula has been referred to; namely, that two months should be the limit for the processing of initial applications for refugee status or leave to remain and that four months after that should be the limit for the two stages of appeals which will then be available.
	For people who come to this country without any documents or information, with no proof of who they are or where they have come from, it sometimes takes quite a long time to obtain a certain amount of documentary evidence as to what they have suffered and what is the basis of their application for refugee status. If they do not have the opportunity to obtain those documents, it is simply their word against what the adjudicator may think. In those circumstances their application is less likely to succeed.
	So, in fairness to the applicants, they need to be given sufficient time to try to obtain the necessary information to support their claims. I know from personal experience that obtaining documents from such countries as Iran or Afghanistan can be time-consuming. Getting them translated accurately also takes time. So there are processes to be gone through which take time and which justify saying that in many cases the initial decision cannot be made in less than two months. The same applies to the appeal process. At that stage people will have realised what is holding up their claim and will know what extra documentation and proof they have to find.
	We believe—a point put forward in another place by my honourable friend Simon Hughes—that six months as a limit is not unreasonable. However, six months in an accommodation centre is bordering on the unreasonable. If it is the Government's belief that people should not be in accommodation centres for longer than six months, that ought to be clearly laid down somewhere. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment on the face of the Bill—I can understand the reasons why he might not—what is he prepared to do to provide a guarantee in black and white that people will not remain in the centres for more than six months?
	One of the reasons put forward in another place was that having an absolute cut-off line was unreasonable because it might actually be unfair and unreasonable to individuals in some circumstances. People whose claim had been accepted on the border of six months, or whatever time was put forward, ought to be given a little time before being kicked out into the wide world to find their own accommodation. Alternatively, if someone was waiting for a decision that was due in a few days or the following week it would be unreasonable to make them find other accommodation in the community or to transfer them there. Similarly, to force people who had had their claims refused and who were waiting to be removed from the country into interim accommodation pending their removal might be unreasonable.
	Those are good, sensible arguments, but they are arguments of detail, not arguments against the basic principle that six months in an accommodation centre is long enough for anybody, and certainly long enough for any family. Any person or family who is going to be settled in this country must start integrating into the community before six months. People who are going to be removed ought not to be held for longer than that. We ought to be able to deal with their cases.
	What guarantees can the Government give us to allay our fears so that we are content to withdraw the amendment, as I am sure the Minister will ask us to do?

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Six months is a very long time for children. The Refugee Children's Consortium told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that children should not be in accommodation centres at all. The consortium made nine points, which are put in legalistic terms, but they are very sensible. The shorter the time for children the better. If it can be reduced to 10 weeks, perhaps we can accept the idea of families being incarcerated in this way. I do not know what the noble Lord is going to say, but that seems to be an argument.

The Earl of Sandwich: I support the noble Baroness. Her earlier simple amendment on numbers turned into an hour and a half long debate. This is a critical issue. The amount of time that people are going to spend in accommodation centres determines the nature of the centres and the resources that we commit to services. The more services and the larger the numbers, the longer people are going to stay in the centres.
	The Government believe in targets, so why not set a target? It may not be on the face of the Bill, but let us hear a more definite target along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness.
	I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was going to mention detention. Many of us who have sat through these Bills have complained about how long people have to spend in detention centres. We believe that the Government are going to shorten those periods. Why can they not turn their attention to accommodation centres in the same spirit?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall be extremely brief in support of my noble friend. I have read the Commons Committee debate on 9th May at cols. 106 to 119 of the Official Report. It was a long debate. If I may be allowed a Wimbledonian metaphor, by the final column the debate was at about deuce. Mr Malins, serving, raised a question about the words, "in exceptional circumstances". I acknowledge that the Minister, Angela Eagle, blocked it. I further acknowledge that the matter was resolved by force majeur in a vote in the next column so that the Committee could move on with proceedings on the Bill.
	I also noticed the words that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, quoted. On 7th February, the Home Secretary was saying God forbid that anybody should be in an accommodation centre for six months, but by col. 118, just before the Committee debate came to deuce, Angela Eagle said:
	"On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that six months was about right".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 9/5/02; col. 118.]
	That is clearly a different quotation from that which was used on 7th February. There has been some movement from the Government, possibly in the wrong direction. I have not found the Home Secretary's specific words at Second Reading, because the reference is not given in the text. As, in my view, it was about deuce after 12 columns of debate and my parliamentary neighbour in Kensington North—who had an asylum caseload very similar to my own in Westminster, South—expressed her own sympathy for the spirit of the amendments that we were moving, I shall be very interested to listen to the Minister when he responds to the remark about "in exceptional circumstances", given the fact that that is an addition to the amendment, since we moved a simpler amendment without it in Committee in the Commons.

Lord Hylton: I think that 10 weeks, as stated rather baldly in the amendment, is by itself too short. Can the Minister say how he envisages these accommodation centres working in practice? For example, will they be used in combination with reporting or in combination with cards giving access to various necessary services? If that were the case, then it might be possible to take only part of the total asylum decision-making process within the accommodation centres, allowing the possibility for the individuals or families to move on to another stage sooner than six months.

Lord Filkin: I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. There is clearly not an issue between us on the importance of dealing with applications for asylum as rapidly and succinctly as we possibly can. I think that everything that has been said in our two sittings thus far has affirmed that. Such action is in the family's interests and in the Government's interest. The issue is whether it makes any sense in practice to have a statutory lock-in in the Bill as opposed to a process in which the Government clearly set themselves goals on what they seek to achieve. For reasons that I shall try to outline, I think that a statutory lock-in in the Bill would not be in the interests of good government or of families.
	I start by trying to counter the view that accommodation centres are necessarily bad places. I hope that I have been able today to outline the quality of accommodation and the support that will be provided. It is not necessarily true that families will suffer from being there, although we recognise that, if it is positive, most families will be pleased to receive an early decision on their asylum application.
	Amendment No. 104 would mean that people could be supported in an accommodation centre for a maximum of 10 weeks unless exceptional circumstances applied. Amendments Nos. 107A, 111A and 111B would mean that asylum seekers and their dependants could be there for a maximum of six months. We have made it abundantly clear that we do not want people to remain in accommodation centres for long periods if it can be avoided. We are all agreed on wanting to process cases quickly while ensuring that decisions are fair.
	We are trialling these accommodation centres. We expect them to deliver faster processing times, and we believe that the increased contact time they afford should reduce delays. I think that some of the features we have discussed today such as adjudicators and caseworkers on site are a very significant shift in the likelihood of being able to process asylum claims in accommodation centres much more rapidly than was envisaged when the Bill was first introduced in another place. I get a sense that the Committee generally welcomes that.
	However, let us look at the reality of the situation. If by "exceptional circumstances" one means that a family did not go to appeal after a negative decision, I think that it would be slightly more realistic. However, families and individuals have a statutory right to appeal, and no one is suggesting that they should not do so. Particularly if they exercise their full range of rights, it is going to be extremely difficult for that process to be encompassed within 10 weeks, if possible, or within six months, as will often, if not always, be the case.
	Let us consider the time periods allowed by statute for appeal. No one is arguing that we should reduce those. An asylum seeker who is refused has 10 working days in which to appeal to an adjudicator. If his appeal is dismissed he has a further 10 working days to appeal to the tribunal. If he is turned down at that point he will have 10 working days in which to apply for statutory review of the tribunal's decision. Alternatively, if leave is granted, there will be a substantive tribunal hearing on the application. Straightaway we are looking at four to five weeks before we begin to examine the time taken to interview, the need to check the information provided, any new circumstances which come to light, and so on.
	Amendment No. 104 does at least provide for exceptions to the rule whereas Amendments Nos. 107B, 111A and 111B do not. But I would envisage all sorts of practical difficulties with interpreting what exceptional circumstances were. Would they be wide enough to cover a situation where a person was due to receive their final determination in a matter of days or weeks when it might make no sense to require someone to move to a dispersal area? Would they cover the situation where a person actually wished to remain in the centre pending a decision because the supportive environment catered for their needs or they needed a little more time to move on? Would they deal with a situation where there was a sudden significant increase in asylum applications because of a particular regional conflict which might have a short-term effect on processing times? If the amendment does not do this, it clearly makes little sense. If it does, then does it really achieve anything more than adding extra bureaucracy whereby the Secretary of State needs to authorise the additional exceptional period?
	I am not complacent and I am determined that we must do better. But we are making real improvements. Our latest provisional data—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned this—indicate that 53 per cent of applications received in the period from April to December 2001 had initial decisions reached and served within two months. Some 47,015 asylum appeals to an adjudicator were determined in 2001–02, an increase of three-quarters compared with 2000–01. It is also important to reflect on the point that the vast majority of those who are granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain receive that status at the time of initial decision, as I believe was mentioned previously.
	I should make some other important points. Accommodation centres are designed to provide a supportive environment for asylum seekers. Those who have come seeking refuge and who have also asked for support from the Government because they are destitute will have a roof over their heads, adequate food, activities to occupy their time, interpretation facilities and will be in contact with many other residents who speak the same language. They will also be in a centre which is designed to keep them informed about the progress of their case. The inclusion of a time limit by implication suggests that accommodation centres will be awful places. That is not the case. The logical consequence of these amendments is that, regardless of whether someone feels safe and secure, we have to move them to a different area. I heard the point that was made, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We would not want to have a situation whereby to meet some arbitrary time limit we had to move a family somewhere else just to keep faith with that time limit. That would be a case of turning government goals on their head and making the goal the objective rather than the interests of the family and the processing.
	However, we have tabled an amendment in response to the concerns about the length of time families with children may spend in accommodation centres. We will come to that shortly but that is designed to reflect the particular concerns about children. The amendment will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring him to consider after a period of time, likely to be six months, whether accommodation other than in an accommodation centre should be provided to a family, and after a period of time, likely to be nine months, requiring him to provide alternative accommodation should the family request it.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned exceptional circumstances where delays overseas have resulted in claims not being processed in time. However, that is not always capable of being described as an exceptional circumstance. What would happen if the delay in a large number of cases was due to that? As I say, that circumstance could not always be considered exceptional.
	As regards turnaround times, I wish to try to signal that we are not complacent. I shall not go into a lot of detail. The turnaround times that we have quoted previously relate to the processing of the massive backlog that started to build up when numbers of applications went through the roof from 1996 onwards. Therefore, the average is weighted by longstanding applications. As regards recent performance, we are turning around about 70 per cent of cases in two months. That is extremely positive news. It is not as fast as we would like but it is a positive sign. The location of case workers and adjudicators on site should enable our initial decision-making further to speed up. However, as regards appeal processes, even with the increase in the consideration of cases by adjudicators to 6,000 cases a month by November—that is the target and will constitute a phenomenal increase in throughput—we cannot guarantee that all that will be done within a time limit on the face of the Bill.
	There was some suggestion that families would be incarcerated in centres, but that is not true. They are free to come and go, subject to reporting restrictions. We do not think that the centres will be against the interests of children but we shall consider that in more detail later. Those centres will provide good education, good support for families, good play facilities and perhaps the first stability that some of those families have had for months. We strongly refute the view that they are bad for children or that they should not necessarily be there. Potentially, they will provide a better and more caring environment than will some dispersed accommodation.
	I have no doubt that I have not answered all of the points at this late hour. For the reasons that I have suggested, we feel that although we are utterly committed to accelerating turnaround time while maintaining fair process, restrictions in the Bill would not be in anyone's interests, least of all those of families.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part in this debate at this late hour. I have been given much food for thought for the Summer Recess. There is much that I shall have to consider before taking this amendment forward. Perhaps I should say that at the beginning of my remarks rather than at the end.
	I agree with the Minister that we start with the same objectives. We want a system that has speed but is fair. That is always a difficult balance to achieve in any legal system.
	The Minister said that he objected to including a statutory lock-in in the Bill. Opposition parties always try to secure some kind of commitment for action from government rather than goals and targets that make a good headline one day but which the next day mean nothing to those involved, who find themselves trapped in the system. The Minister will not be surprised if I return to the issue of the statutory lock-in at some stage.
	I was grateful to Members of the Committee for their comments and to my noble friends Lord Brooke and Lady Carnegy of Lour for their support. Although the Minister made some response to my rider about exceptional circumstances, that has not yet been properly addressed.
	I was intrigued by the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who proposed a system for fast-tracking families with children. I had not considered that heretofore. I shall look carefully at my amendment before bringing it back in a different, more constructive, form. There are, we are told, relatively few families with children involved, so perhaps there could be a way of making the noble Baroness's suggestion a reality.
	The Minister's reply was rather disappointing in many respects, but I have two points to make on it. First, his summary of the number of people who receive the determination and the period within which they do so does not quite fit with some of the information that I have to hand. I shall look very carefully at the figures that he gave and compare them with the information that I have been given by the Refugee Council and which I have received during the past few months in Written Answers.
	Finally, it is important to welcome one part of the Minister's answer. It was absolutely right that he should recognise that those who apply for asylum here need proper time in which to make their application in the proper way and that they should have all the legal advice that they may need. Too often the Government seem to think that the only delays that occur in our criminal justice system are created by the defence, not the prosecution. I hope that in the system for processing asylum appeals, we shall properly recognise the fact that those who process appeals can be just as at fault as—if not more than—as those who are trying to make a proper application. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 105 to 107 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at ten o'clock.
	Correction
	At col. 440 of the Official Report for 8th July, the entry for the Finance Bill is incorrect. It should read:
	"Brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed".